Afraid of marriage/divorce - 21 y/o

listermint

The Corinthian wrote: »

I know. grames_bond already corrected me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

This is the first admission that something could go wrong, by you or any of my other detractors. Prior to this, you've all been at pains to dismiss it, going so far as to claim that you know personally of no negative examples. And that's a lot worse than anything I've said, TBH.

To use your analogy here, you've been essentially saying that there is no upturned plug in the bedroom. You've never come across one and so you shouldn't worry about it. Talking about them is just negativity.

All I'm saying is look where you put your feet when you get out of bed, but ultimately don't be too afraid to get out of bed.

This part is total crap.

No one here said that bad things cant happen. What they did say was that its RIDICULOUS to obsess about it. Which judging by all your posts collectively you appear to think that this is a major part of every relationship. It appears your view is somewhat coloured or jilted by extremely bad experience and as such warning 21 year old of impending potential divorce at some point in their life is normal and okay.

Where the hell is the positivity in that.

What ever happened to just loving a guy with a bus pass

The Corinthian

listermint wrote: »

No one here said that bad things cant happen.

Really? Show me one example of any of those arguing against me who has highlighted that bad things can happen. The closest you'll find is a vague, brief reference to 'there are risks in life', which is quickly brushed off. That's it.

That bad things can happen has been consistently dismissed by some in this thread, even going as far as to claim (through their experience) that it doesn't happen.

What they did say was that its RIDICULOUS to obsess about it.

No, they've said that you shouldn't worry about it at all. It's been those like me who've said that you should not obsess about it.

Which judging by all your posts collectively you appear to think that this is a major part of every relationship. It appears your view is somewhat coloured or jilted by extremely bad experience and as such warning 21 year old of impending potential divorce at some point in their life is normal and okay.

By which you mean that lacking any way to argue with what I've actually written you're instead resorting to a personal attack that hypothetically explains it all. Good for you - between asking me about my other half and this, I can see the quality of argument here is taking a nosedive.

listermint

The Corinthian wrote: »

Really? Show me one example of any of those arguing against me who has highlighted that bad things can happen. The closest you'll find is a vague, brief reference to 'there are risks in life', which is quickly brushed off. That's it.

That bad things can happen has been consistently dismissed by some in this thread, even going as far as to claim (through their experience) that it doesn't happen.

No, they've said that you shouldn't worry about it at all. It's been those like me who've said that you should not obsess about it.

By which you mean that lacking any way to argue with what I've actually written you're instead resorting to a personal attack that hypothetically explains it all. Good for you - between asking me about my other half and this, I can see the quality of argument here is taking a nosedive.

Personal attack ? No on the contrary i think your posts have been quite abrubt and aggressive in nature.

By saying that your view looks coloured by some bad experience isnt a personal attack in fact it shows that you have a very defensive nature. Apologies if you are taking more out of posts than intended.

Also ive had nothing to say on your relationship with whomever you are tied to presently so leave me out of the same post when replying.

The Corinthian

listermint wrote: »

Personal attack ? No on the contrary i think your posts have been quite abrubt and aggressive in nature.

What's that got to do with making a personal attack against me?

By saying that your view looks coloured by some bad experience isnt a personal attach in fact it shows that you have a very defensive nature. Apologies if you are taking more out of posts than intended.

My stance is principally based upon the treatment of this subject almost as if it is taboo. The moment that it was suggested that the OP should not ignore the risks, people jumped in to defend against any criticism of marriage and/or relationships in general.

Yet all I and others have said is to keep it in mind, but not too much in mind:

The Corinthian wrote: »

But being responsible is not the same as being obsessed, so do keep such concerns in perspective.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Don't let such fears dictate your life, but don't ignore them either.

Please Kill Me wrote: »

So don't dismiss the possibility, but don't let it rule your life either.

Sleepy wrote: »

Don't set yourself up to lose but don't let fear rule your life either.

No one, arguing against these views, has suggested that the OP should at least bare such considerations in mind - and I don't mean solely in terms of marriage but also cohabitation and even the risks surrounding sex.

Instead, risk is at best briefly mentioned, then dismissed, and while it's never explicitly said that such risks are imaginary, on more than one occasion it is suggested that, based upon the poster's experience, they are:

knucklehead6 wrote: »

As for being on the short end of the stick, i can't say its something i have ever experienced. I am friendly with unmarried parents of both sexes and maybe it's just my circle of friends, but there is no animosity between the women and their ex's or the man and theirs.

grames_bond wrote: »

This IMO is a extremely disrespectful viewpoint to have - how can you have such a fog eyed "tar all women with one brush" viewpoint? I know many many married people that under no circumstances does this fit! (In fact I would be inclined to say 100% of them)

So if I'm aggressive, it is in refuting a remarkably naieve and irresponsible viewpoint to give to anyone. Certainly the OP should not allow himself to be ruled by such fears, but what you and others are effectively doing is advising him to do the opposite, which is equally wrong.

listermint wrote: »

Also ive had nothing to say on your relationship with whomever you are tied to presently so leave me out of the same post when replying.

Well, as arguments against what I've said, have been drying up, I've noted a shift twoards questioning my personal life and history instead - someone else may have asked by bringing my present relationship into the discussion, but in bringing my hypothetical past as a reason to dismiss what I say, you're basically resorting to the same base strategy.

By all means make such observations after you've successfully refuted my arguments, but not as a means to do so.

grames_bond

you quoted me COMPLETELY out of context there! I was reacting to the servitude line you spouted!

The Corinthian

grames_bond wrote: »

you quoted me COMPLETELY out of context there! I was reacting to the servitude line you spouted!

Actually I didn't. First of all, I mentioned indentured servitude (which is an important point) and was actually criticizing those who take the extreme view that obsesses over this danger.

Secondly, you suggested - based on your experience - that this is something that does not happen. Yet it does happen (how often depends upon a definition of indentured servitude), even if it is not that commonplace.

So yes, you dismissed a potential negative consequence of relationships. Have you actually accepted any?

knucklehead6

grames_bond wrote: »

you quoted me COMPLETELY out of context there! I was reacting to the servitude line you spouted!

Be careful there grames.... The Corinthian seems to take the exact literal meaning out of your words, and then twist them completely out of recognition.

Back in my first post on this topic i said that the OP shouldn't worry about it.

After all, he's not seeing anyone.
At 21 it's unlikely that he has a property that a woman will set her money grabbing shrew like eyes on.

And then i went on to say that in my experience not all relationships that end, end up where the ex partners are at each others throats over access to the children.

The Corinthian chose to twist these words and sentiments into something that suits his own particular agenda.

Remember, your analogy about comparing a job interview and a relationship was twisted to comparing taking LSD and a relationship.

Either way, i'm done here.

listermint

The Corinthian wrote: »

What's that got to do with making a personal attack against me?

My stance is principally based upon the treatment of this subject almost as if it is taboo. The moment that it was suggested that the OP should not ignore the risks, people jumped in to defend against any criticism of marriage and/or relationships in general.

Yet all I and others have said is to keep it in mind, but not too much in mind:




No one, arguing against these views, has suggested that the OP should at least bare such considerations in mind - and I don't mean solely in terms of marriage but also cohabitation and even the risks surrounding sex.

Instead, risk is at best briefly mentioned, then dismissed, and while it's never explicitly said that such risks are imaginary, on more than one occasion it is suggested that, based upon the poster's experience, they are:


So if I'm aggressive, it is in refuting a remarkably naieve and irresponsible viewpoint to give to anyone. Certainly the OP should not allow himself to be ruled by such fears, but what you and others are effectively doing is advising him to do the opposite, which is equally wrong.

Well, as arguments against what I've said, have been drying up, I've noted a shift twoards questioning my personal life and history instead - someone else may have asked by bringing my present relationship into the discussion, but in bringing my hypothetical past as a reason to dismiss what I say, you're basically resorting to the same base strategy.

By all means make such observations after you've successfully refuted my arguments, but not as a means to do so.

Taboo ? No i just find it entirely confusing why someone would be thinking about divorce before they are even in a relationship.

Im questioning your viewpoint because i DO NOT think that your viewpoint is in fact one for a healthy adult to have. Theres one thing about going into a reasonable relationship thinking 'where is this going to go'. And there is another worrying about that sort of thing before youve even met someone.

Finally again i never made a personal attack at you. Your defensive posts indicate you have a low tolerance to differing opinions. Also again i never questioned your current relationship but your that your veiwpoint must be heavily coloured by experience.

I also get tired by multiquote responses so excuse me if i missed anything youve written thats more to do with me than you.

The Corinthian

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Be careful there grames.... The Corinthian seems to take the exact literal meaning out of your words, and then twist them completely out of recognition.

What was the context? Where was your well balanced view that recognises that these things happen but one should not place too much weight on them?

Claiming someone took your words out of context doesn't mean they did.

At 21 it's unlikely that he has a property that a woman will set her money grabbing shrew like eyes on.

Who said a woman would? Seriously, where was this said?

And then i went on to say that in my experience not all relationships that end, end up where the ex partners are at each others throats over access to the children.

Now you're telling porkies. You said, in your experience, none of them have. It's in writing, so you can't pretend it's something else.

The Corinthian chose to twist these words and sentiments into something that suits his own particular agenda.

Which is an easy way to dismiss anything I've said without actually addressing it.

He has an agenda. He's bitter. He's had a bad experience. His girlfriend/wife/partner would be horrified by his views / he doesn't love her.

The only thing any of these attempts to dismiss an argument have is that they allow you to avoid actually addressing anything that's been said.

Remember, your analogy about comparing a job interview and a relationship was twisted to comparing taking LSD and a relationship.

Yes, and remember I linked to an article on analogies so you would better understand what they are before taking offence?

listermint wrote: »

Taboo ? No i just find it entirely confusing why someone would be thinking about divorce before they are even in a relationship.

Please read my first post in this thread. Also I suggest you read Sleepy's.

We all know that marriage is unlikely to be an issue for him to consider for a while, but life is no longer as simple as that. But in Irish law there are serious consequences to cohabitation, or even sleeping, with the wrong person, and these are related to the same topic - realistically he's not too young to be informed of and consider those.

Is it so negative that he should not already be considering this when he enters a relationship? Or when should he consider it, in your view?

Im questioning your viewpoint because i DO NOT think that your viewpoint is in fact one for a healthy adult to have. Theres one thing about going into a reasonable relationship thinking 'where is this going to go'. And there is another worrying about that sort of thing before youve even met someone.

No one is suggesting that; it makes no sense. Naturally, he can only assess 'where is this going to go' when he meets someone, but are you suggesting that we should not even talk about the subject until then?

Finally again i never made a personal attack at you. Your defensive posts indicate you have a low tolerance to differing opinions. Also again i never questioned your current relationship but your that your veiwpoint must be heavily coloured by experience.

Again, I did not accuse you personally of bringing my current relationship into this, only that this was the direction (along with accusations of agendas) that the discussion was taking.

I've had my views on this subject for a long, long time - long before all of my experiences, both good and bad. And I've had far fewer of the latter than most, fortunately.

Most life-long relationships are life-long. Only a fraction (at least in Ireland) go bad and overall, so the odds are on your side. But that's no excuse for ignoring the potential dangers before you enter into a relationship with someone.

Or not to avoid relationships with some types of people who are likely to be the very ones who will end up dragging you down. Or not gravitate twoards the ones who will stand by you in the long term, but you mightn't notice if you weren't thinking about the long term when you met them.

Or thinking twice about moving in with someone prone to behaviour that may be a serious problem in the future (even though you're presently ignoring it out of love).

A modicum of care is not the same as abandoning all hope of a future relationship. If it is, it's no longer a modicum.

Having no care is idiocy.

ToxicPaddy

OP, first things first..

Starting anything with a negative outlook is never going to go well. Look at
the positives and go from there.

Have you ever gone into a restaurant and thought "oh this is gonna be
sh*te" even before you went in the door or went on a holiday and even
before you got on the plane thought "jeez I'm wasting my time here, I
could be at home sitting on the sofa looking out at the rain"

I know thats over simplifying things but you get my meaning..

There is nothing wrong with being realistic, but at the same think thinking
negatively about everything is the wrong mindset to have.

Not every girl you meet is going to end up being the start of a relationship
and not every girl you get into a relationship is going to end up in marriage.
You take the bad with the good and learn from it.

Some posters on here have been unlucky enough to have had bad experiences
in relationships in the past as have I. I've had my heart broken in the past and
been cheated on etc, but that's life. I just picked myself up and moved on.

If you are lucky enough to meet someone you feel you want to marry, good
for you, just do your best to make sure she is the one and go from
there.

As a famous movie character said:

"Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

The Corinthian

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with being realistic, but at the same think thinking negatively about everything is the wrong mindset to have.

With all due respect, there's been two viewpoints expressed here up until now; a realistic one and a naively optimistic one that basically gets upset at the mention that relationships can sometimes turn bad. If you disagree with this, please feel free to cite why.

Some posters on here have been unlucky enough to have had bad experiences in relationships in the past as have I. I've had my heart broken in the past and been cheated on etc, but that's life. I just picked myself up and moved on.

I'm getting just a little tired of this inference that if someone doesn't run around saying how wonderful love is and we should not pay attention to any of the bad things that happen in relationships, it must be because they've had a bad experience.

Wishful thinking on some people's parts, TBH.

pwurple

Indeed, no harm to be careful in general. It is a legal contract afterall. Cross the road, but look both ways first. Marriage can bring a lot of desirable things to both partners. Support, longevity, material gain, a family.

But with anything, caution is advised. Basically, don't marry a flake.

LostinBlanch

I read your first lines and said to myself, Jaysus you're only 21! Go out and enjoy yourself and stop worrying about things that you imagine will happen in 19 years time. If you do that, you'll limit yourself and more than likely deny yourself wonderful opportunities. Go out and travel the world, meet some lovely girls (or guys if that's your thing) and have some fun.

There's time for all the responsibility stuff later, or sooner maybe; you don't know how life changes when you're not expecting it. But as the Corinthian said don't obsess over it. You have a life to live so do that, just don't waste it by worrying about sh*te that may never happen.

Or to turn it on it's head, you could meet someone and be deleriously happy to spend the rest of your life with them, and vice versa . . . and then where would your worries be?

iptba

Playboy wrote: »

Make sure she is a) sane b) not vindictive c) is able to provide for herself and contribute financially to the cost of any kids. If she is going to get half then make sure she pays half first.

I think c) is easier said than done. How exactly is one supposed to be able force one's wife/long-term partner to work esp. full-time, particularly after a couple of kids when they can talk about the cost of childcare?

iptba

I'm not sure if I should try to speak for The Corinthian but my guess is that he is frustrated with how men are treated in general after relationships break-up. And frustrated few people seem to be focused on the issue until it happens to them.

For example, not that many country-wide seemed to take an interest in the cohabitation bill a couple of years ago: this introduced something akin to palimony into Ireland. And it was the impractical "opt out" system where each partner has to get separate legal advice before the initial period of the partnership is up (2 years with a child/5 years without) - it is unlikely that many men will do this. In many other countries including Scandinavian countries, it is an opt-in system where one has to sign up for civil partnership.

By so many men not focusing on what happens when relationships break up, in terms of assets and access to children, men's position after break up is unsatisfactory for a significant number.

The Corinthian

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Or to turn it on it's head, you could meet someone and be deleriously happy to spend the rest of your life with them, and vice versa . . . and then where would your worries be?

If you're delirious, then you should stop and think.

There are no guarantees in life that the person you're with today will be the same in one, ten or twenty years time; indeed, it's almost certain they won't be. However, even early on you can pick up on character traits, both good and bad, that may indicate what they will develop into over time.

You might have a 'fiery' or 'tempestuous' relationship, and as intoxicating passion may be, this is probably a sure sign that it will not end well in the long run. Ditzy, immature characters are likely also to present issues in the future, as they tend to be less responsible and expect others to pick up the pieces of the damage they cause through life.

Then look at their past history; is it littered with infidelities or short-term romances? Have they ever supported themselves financially? You'll be amazed how many manage to get to their thirties without ever having held down a real job - a classic example of this is those who prolong their student days and survive through handouts from relatives or living rent-free with lovers, well into their thirties.

And look at their parents, because that's what they're going to look like in twenty or thirty years time - not to mention behave like too, or inherit health or mental issues that could prove a significant future burden. Some people age well, others don't.

I think all this is important to consider in any relationship, and the greater the commitment, the greater the importance. For example, you should already be asking yourself these questions if you're about to move in together, after all cohabitation is often the first stage to a more permanent commitment and (in Ireland) becomes one automatically after a few years.

In short, regardless of your age, you probably should be asking yourself these questions the moment a relationship doesn't have a 'expiry date' from the onset.

However, it is important not too exaggerate and set your criteria too high. Just because a person may have some potential negative traits, does not mean that these will develop in time. And at the end of the day, nobody's perfect - even you.

So being too careful will just doom you to never finding someone for fear of failure; a fear that far outstrips the likelihood of it occurring in reality.

Ultimately though, none of these measures are guaranteed to protect you from a bad match, but they will improve your odds of avoiding one. However, you can't employ any of them if you're 'delirious'.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

I'm not sure if I should try to speak for The Corinthian but my guess is that he is frustrated with how men are treated in general after relationships break-up. And frustrated few people seem to be focused on the issue until it happens to them.

Actually, no, that's not what I am/was frustrated at.

If you dare to criticize modern relationships (marriage, civil partnerships, long-term cohabitants) in any way, suggest that the consequences are so large that it might be better to avoid it in many (note I don't say all) cases - in particular if you're a man - or that people should actually be a little bit more circumspect about who they decide to commit to, then the love police comes out.

The first comments are often that it's so "depressing" that people may end up growing old single, even though many are very happy doing so and, let's face it, a majority of us will die single anyway (do the maths).

Then relationships and marriage will be defended vociferously, to the point that practically no mention of the negative aspects or risks will be even mentioned.

Finally comes the counter attack, which invariably relies on the belief that any rejection or even criticism of relationships and marriage is due to some form of mental illness, most likely as a result of a bad relationship that has soured the critic.

It's that kind of idiocy that frustrates me.

For example, not that many country-wide seemed to take an interest in the cohabitation bill a couple of years ago: this introduced something akin to palimony into Ireland. And it was the impractical "opt out" system where each partner has to get separate legal advice before the initial period of the partnership is up (2 years with a child/5 years without) - it is unlikely that many men will do this. In many other countries including Scandinavian countries, it is an opt-in system where one has to sign up for civil partnership.

This is probably a reason why the OP is not too young to be considering these things now; even if he won't be even thinking about marriage for years, he may well end up cohabiting before long and this law means that to a great extent you have to apply many of the same principles to the person you move in with as the one you will marry.

captainpants23

Marriage is for chumps. Just say NO.

listermint

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, no, that's not what I am/was frustrated at.

If you dare to criticize modern relationships (marriage, civil partnerships, long-term cohabitants) in any way, suggest that the consequences are so large that it might be better to avoid it in many (note I don't say all) cases - in particular if you're a man - or that people should actually be a little bit more circumspect about who they decide to commit to, then the love police comes out.

The first comments are often that it's so "depressing" that people may end up growing old single, even though many are very happy doing so and, let's face it, a majority of us will die single anyway (do the maths).

Then relationships and marriage will be defended vociferously, to the point that practically no mention of the negative aspects or risks will be even mentioned.

Finally comes the counter attack, which invariably relies on the belief that any rejection or even criticism of relationships and marriage is due to some form of mental illness, most likely as a result of a bad relationship that has soured the critic.

It's that kind of idiocy that frustrates me.

This is probably a reason why the OP is not too young to be considering these things now; even if he won't be even thinking about marriage for years, he may well end up cohabiting before long and this law means that to a great extent you have to apply many of the same principles to the person you move in with as the one you will marry.

It appears your frustrated that most posters dont share the same 'realistic' bleak outlook as you possess.

Are we a nation of hopeless romantics, probably!

The Corinthian

listermint wrote: »

It appears your frustrated that most posters dont share the same 'realistic' bleak outlook as you possess.

Not what I wrote; I'm frustrated that other posters (and you and the knucklehead posting multiple times does not constitute a majority) cannot tolerate any view other than your own.

Are we a nation of hopeless romantics, probably!

I would have thought insecure rather than hopeless, but whatever you prefer.

Fukuyama

Guys, I'm not down the solicitors office getting advice just yet! :P

I started this thread just to see if people ever thought about this stuff.

From reading some of the replies it seems many don't and those who do are insane and likely misogynist :rolleyes:

I've also learned of this co-habitation bill. Which seems like the stupidest thing I've ever heard of (at least when there's no kids involved.). I had no idea this existed and I've never heard it mentioned by anyone until now.

I know I'm focusing on women in my posts, but it's purely (unless there's a massive upheaval in my sexuality which I seriously doubt) because I'm probably going to marry one someday.

The situation I fear goes something like this. I meet girl. Fall in love. Marriage. Kids. Stress. Love dries up. Divorce. I'm dragged by my collar through the courts. Never see kids. Have to pay loads of money to support family I'm no longer a part of. Die alone and broke in a studio apartment with mold.

I'm not obsessing. It just something that popped into my head a few months back and seem to think of everytime I hear of people getting married. They're all love struck. Happy etc... kids on the way. I'm not thinking it'd definitely going to go south. But if it does, chances are the guy won't be smiling like he is not for another twenty years or so.

Also... I don't get comparing this to getting fired or whatever. Marriage and children are about the only decisions which will have an impact emotionally and financially until you bite the dust.

captainpants23

No one has ever given me even ONE convincing reason as to why I should get married.

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

I'm not obsessing. It just something that popped into my head a few months back and seem to think of everytime I hear of people getting married. They're all love struck. Happy etc... kids on the way. I'm not thinking it'd definitely going to go south. But if it does, chances are the guy won't be smiling like he is not for another twenty years or so.

As long as you remember that not all marriages are doomed. In fact, only a minority are (in Ireland) and most are still successful and fulfilling partnerships that last a lifetime.

All I and others have suggested, is that you look before you leap - fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and all that jazz. If more did that, I suspect fewer may get married, but far fewer still would end up divorced or separated.

captainpants23 wrote: »

No one has ever given me even ONE convincing reason as to why I should get married.

There's numerous reasons. There are numerous financial and social benefits. It creates the optimum environment for having and raising children. And if the marriage is healthy, the health benefits (both physical and psychological) - especially to men - are well documented.

And those are the 'rational' reasons. Sometimes it can also be as simple as feeling that you've met someone that you genuinely want to spend the rest of your life with.

This is not to suggest that marriage does not have it's downsides or that it really doesn't make a lot of sense for most men (in particular) any more, but I certainly would not rule it out either.

ToxicPaddy

The Corinthian wrote: »

With all due respect, there's been two viewpoints expressed here up until now; a realistic one and a naively optimistic one that basically gets upset at the mention that relationships can sometimes turn bad. If you disagree with this, please feel free to cite why.

Yes I do agree there have been two very distinct points of view, but I was referring to the OP's original feeling about being afraid to get into a relationship and the fear of it leading to marriage and ultimately divorce. I did mention the fact that I have experienced good and bad relationships but while I was naturally upset about some of the things I have experienced, it has not stopped me going out and see what the future may hold.

wrote:

I'm getting just a little tired of this inference that if someone doesn't run around saying how wonderful love is and we should not pay attention to any of the bad things that happen in relationships, it must be because they've had a bad experience.

Wishful thinking on some people's parts, TBH.

Again, I wasn't inferring anything about anyone in particular, I was merely pointing out that some posters in here have had bad experiences in past relationships. I didn't mention any names, no one was singled out except myself as I have, but it has not stopped me.

Not everyone is a relationship type person, some people are happy in their own company and have no intention of ever getting into a relationship. I commend them for having the insight of knowing themselves so well. Not everyone is so lucky. Others are willing to take a chance and see how it goes.

The OP however is a young, 21 iirc, not in a relationship and just looking to hear about other peoples experiences on the subject.

lazygal

captainpants23 wrote: »

No one has ever given me even ONE convincing reason as to why I should get married.

Extra tax credits.


Honestly, you'd swear the courts were coming down with acrimonious divorce cases. We still have a pretty low divorce rate in Ireland compared to the numbers actually getting married. We got married because we love each other and wanted to make sure we cemented the relationships. Yadadada about not needing pieces of paper etc but we wanted that bit of paper. Its fierce handy should we need to worry about next of kin rights or if we want to go work in the States for a while. Marriage isn't all plain sailing, but it compares most favourably to the alternative. I don't want to go through life alone and me and my husband agree there's no downside to being married. Its not sunshine and roses all the time, but this thread would make you think there's nothing but negative elements to getting married. And that's simply not the case. When you meet the right person, love is easy. Not dramatic or complex or heartwrending, but calm, and joyful, and rewarding. Don't get married if you don't want to. But equally, don't piss all over the idea of marriage because you've had a few relationships that didn't work out. Most people have had that. I'm not directlng this at any one poster, more at the general tone of the thread.

The Corinthian

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

Again, I wasn't inferring anything about anyone in particular, I was merely pointing out that some posters in here have had bad experiences in past relationships. I didn't mention any names, no one was singled out except myself as I have, but it has not stopped me.

Some? All I can see is one who would have been critical of marriage. Who are all these others?

There really is a lot of wishful thinking going on here.

captainpants23

lazygal and The Corinthian have given me some of the possible, debatable benefits of being married, NOT reasons to get married. Marriage sucks, it always has sucked, in the 19th century it sucked for women, in 21st century Ireland it sucks, like a black hole in outer space, for men. Just to be clear, marriage is a legal contract between two parties. A piece of paper. That is what I am pissing down on. Love, relationships etc. are separate, less easily defined concepts.

ToxicPaddy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Some? All I can see is one who would have been critical of marriage. Who are all these others?

There really is a lot of wishful thinking going on here.

I guess I must have insulted someone here.. nothing I can say seems to be the right thing *shrugs*

I live wishful thinking, if someone doesn't like it then so be it. Who am I to tell them otherwise.

If you want my advice OP, if you meet someone you like, give it a go, see where it goes and who knows
what may happen, you might even find yourself having fun by accident..

And if you don't want my advice, ahh well..

Another movie quote for you which makes sense to me:

"It's better to have loved and lost than have never have loved at all"

captainpants23

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

"It's better to have loved and lost than have never have loved at all"

And if you are a man in Ireland going through divorce courts in 2013, boy oh boy, will you lose, lose, lose until you can't lose no more, and then you will lose some more!! Love and marriage are two entirely different things, you could nearly call them antonyms!!

captainpants23

lazygal wrote: »

Extra tax credits.

Avoiding the cost of an engagement ring, a wedding, a mortgage, 18+ years of continual child-related expense per child, more than makes up for any piddling tax saving. And thats before you factor in the financially-ruinous potential divorce. Lots of married men end up just as alone as bachelors. And lots of married men end up wishing they were alone, after their marriage has become nothing more than a battle of wills that they can never win.