What is the right age to get married, in your opinion?

ash777

What is the right age to get married, in your opinion?

I'm in my twenties, and a good few of the people I went to school with are married or engaged. I just think your twenties are way too early to be getting married, I'd say your thirties would maybe be the best time.

What do ye think?

How old were you when you got engaged/married?

IvyTheTerrible

The right age is whatever age it suits you.
Honestly there is no "one size fits all" answer to that question.

QuiteInterestin

Being saying this a while now, but the right age to get married is a few years older then I am now.

Fluorescence

The right age to get married is when you have somebody who you want to marry, who wants to marry you, and when you both feel ready to get married. For some that's 19, others 27, others 46. There is no perfect age to get married.

Childbearing is a different matter though

Scarinae

It varies from couple to couple, but people are also getting married later now for a number of reasons. My Mum was 24 when she got married, and my grandmother was only 20 when she got married; I’m going to be 28 next month and honestly I don’t feel like I’m old enough (and I definitely wouldn’t have been at 20!)

However, I know that’s specific to me – I have friends my age who are engaged, married or have been married for several years, and they obviously felt ready.

Dolbert

30, according to the vast majority of Irish weddings I've attended. Just marry whoever you're with at the time and you'll be grand.

Serious answer - Just because you feel too young to get married at 25, doesn't mean it's the same for everyone else. Everyone's relationship is different. Statistically, and counter to what everyone seems to think, couples who bite the bullet and get married in their 20s are more likely to stay together than couples who've been together for 10 years before tying the knot at 30 (and I say this as someone who's done the latter, and happy with that decision).

rainbow kirby

For me - 30, because that's how old I'll be on my wedding day next May

That's just me though, there is no perfect time and no one size fits all answer.

Problem is a hell of a lot of people feel they "have" to get married.

Some feel that life ends at 30 so must be married before 30, others feel they "need" to get married in order to have children.

Others just get married because most of their friends are married and so feel they should too, or might feel out of place.

Rosy Posy

Personally, I was happy getting married at 28, being one of the first of our group of friends to get married as people were still enthusiastic about it. Five years on there are a glut of weddings and people do nothing but complain about them. Also these days I find a two day wedding kills me. All very superficial things though. Get married whenever you want.

woodchuck

There's no right age, just what's right for a couple.

Deleted User wrote: »

Problem is a hell of a lot of people feel they "have" to get married.

Some feel that life ends at 30 so must be married before 30, others feel they "need" to get married in order to have children.

Others just get married because most of their friends are married and so feel they should too, or might feel out of place.

Totally agree with this.

Also the question implies that everyone will get married at one point or another... this is obviously not true. I think there is a lot pressure on people to feel they have to 'find the one', get married, have kids etc. There's no point in thinking in your 20s 'hmm yes, I've decided early 30s will be the best time to get married'. There are far too many variables in life and things don't always turn out as planned.

pwurple

Yup, as said above, different for everyone, some young, some middling, some older, some never.

No right age really. I wouldn't be judging other people for being too young or too old for it OP. What difference does it make to you what age other people marry at?

woodchuck

woodchuck wrote: »

Totally agree with this.

Also the question implies that everyone will get married at one point or another... this is obviously not true. I think there is a lot pressure on people to feel they have to 'find the one', get married, have kids etc. There's no point in thinking in your 20s 'hmm yes, I've decided early 30s will be the best time to get married'. There are far too many variables in life and things don't always turn out as planned.

Yes I completely agree.

I've seen friends that get married get pregnant as soon as the ring is on the finger, literally.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a lot of women feel more secure in marriage that "grand now I can finally have a baby" or " he can't leave me now that we're married "

The one fundamental flaw in Irish society means that in order for a Man to have "any" rights to his children mean he "has" to be married.

I despise the fact that in Ireland a "family" is only recognised if they are married !!!

My partner and I are together nearly 11 years, have a 12 week old child and I've not a single right to him, backward hole of a country.

I can't believe that in this country we're not classed as a family, have no tax breaks like married couples or I have no rights to my Son !!!!!

And there is "no" sign of change on the horizon.

Sure I can get rights to my Son by going to court and getting my partner to sign a legal document that I have rights to my own flesh and blood but OMG imagine I'd have o do such a thing ???

The fact My name is on his birth cert means absolutely nothing !

sorry for ranting, wasn't my intention but I feel this is another reason a lot of couples get married.

Sam Kade

Deleted User wrote: »

Problem is a hell of a lot of people feel they "have" to get married.

Some feel that life ends at 30 so must be married before 30, others feel they "need" to get married in order to have children.

Others just get married because most of their friends are married and so feel they should too, or might feel out of place.

I went out with a girl one time she was 19 and wanted to be married before 25 :eek: she got married at 22. She was afraid that she would be left on the shelf, she had plenty time until her 30's as she was young looking for her age.

pwurple

Mad_lad, i don't know what you think marriage is, it's simply a legal contract transferring the link between you and your own parents (next of kin, inheritence, guardianship etc) to you and your wife. People get all wrapped up in some idea of what marriage is, it's just a set of legal constructs in a nice tidy bundle. You can go off and arrange some of them individually, like guardianship, but don't be moaning and groaning that it's awkward for you, when there's a very straightforward way of doing it that you are deliberately avoiding.

The law isn't psychic. You have to tell it about your new arrangement.

Plenty of women don't actually want the father of the child to have any guardianship rights over the child. It suits the women who want that option, to not have the name on the birth cert mean rights are handed over. How would that be accomplished otherwise?

efb

30 I'm past it

Sam Kade

Sam Kade wrote: »

I went out with a girl one time she was 19 and wanted to be married before 25 :eek: she got married at 22. She was afraid that she would be left on the shelf, she had plenty time until her 30's as she was young looking for her age.

22 ? that's insane !

Way to young, I know in the dark O'l days women "had" to get married if they were pregnant, not that they would have otherwise but contraception was illegal, backward hole.

It's so easy to know who got married without wanting to , everyone knows couples who got married in their 50's + maybe younger who got pregnant 18-22 ish . they simply had to.

pwurple

pwurple wrote: »

Mad_lad, i don't know what you think marriage is, it's simply a legal contract transferring the link between you and your own parents (next of kin, inheritence, guardianship etc) to you and your wife. People get all wrapped up in some idea of what marriage is, it's just a set of legal constructs in a nice tidy bundle. You can go off and arrange some of them individually, like guardianship, but don't be moaning and groaning that it's awkward for you, when there's a very straightforward way of doing it that you are deliberately avoiding.

The law isn't psychic. You have to tell it about your new arrangement.

Plenty of women don't actually want the father of the child to have any guardianship rights over the child. It suits the women who want that option, to not have the name on the birth cert mean rights are handed over. How would that be accomplished otherwise?

Plenty of women may or may not want the father in the childs life but more often than not that's because it's an inconvenience to the mother due perhaps to having a new partner. It doesn't make it right.

A father should have automatic right to the child as the mother has.

There shouldn't have to be any legal anything to say we're a couple in the eyes of the law.

I'm not deliberately avoiding anything, Irish society is set up so that people must marry to be classed as a family, this is wrong.

Sam Kade

Deleted User wrote: »

22 ? that's insane !

Way to young, I know in the dark O'l days women "had" to get married if they were pregnant, not that they would have otherwise but contraception was illegal, backward hole.

It's so easy to know who got married without wanting to , everyone knows couples who got married in their 50's + maybe younger who got pregnant 18-22 ish . they simply had to.

She wasn't pregnant she just thought that she would be left on the shelf.

Anne2014

There is no right age to get married.

My husband and I are very religious and the sacrament of marriage was always very important to us. I realise that marriage means different things to different people and I respect other people's opinions and beliefs.

We got married young because it was right for us. We both love being married

The Cool

I don't think 22 is an insane age to get married, just because you wouldn't dream of it doesn't mean nobody else should either.

I think it depends on the person and on your situation, which can change. When I was 19 or 20, I would have said that I wanted to be engaged mid-twenties and that I wouldn't just be somebody's girlfriend for more than 5 years, without getting engaged. Now I'm 25, have been in a happy relationship with my best buddy for 5 years, but I am nowhere near ready to think about getting married yet. We're pretty certain that we will but we have no intention of doing it any time soon. In another 5 years time maybe we'll be married or maybe we'll have decided that it's not for us, who knows.

Sam Kade

Sam Kade wrote: »

She wasn't pregnant she just thought that she would be left on the shelf.

Didn't say she was.

pwurple

Deleted User wrote: »

There shouldn't have to be any legal anything to say we're a couple in the eyes of the law.

I'm not deliberately avoiding anything, Irish society is set up so that people must marry to be classed as a family, this is wrong.

I don't agree. It's 200 euro to go off and get that package of inheritance, next of kin, tax affairs, guardianshp, inheritance all sorted out for your family, nice and tidy, with a marriage cert. Seems like good value to me. Especially when it comes to the 40 % inheritance tax.

Parents aren't one size fits all, people have children through a huge range of different fathers, by abusive partners, drunken or violent men. They should never be forced to give any man guardianship.

When it is a straightforward family, the law is perfectly set up to recognise it. You just need to inform it that you ARE a family. Job done.

Yes, of course irish law (and international law) is set up that people marry to be classed as a family, because that is the SOLE purpose of marrying! You become your spouses family. What do you think it is for otherwise?

padma

pwurple wrote: »

I don't agree. It's 200 euro to go off and get that package of inheritance, next of kin, tax affairs, guardianshp, inheritance all sorted out for your family, nice and tidy, with a marriage cert. Seems like good value to me. Especially when it comes to the 40 % inheritance tax.

Parents aren't one size fits all, people have children through a huge range of different fathers, by abusive partners, drunken or violent men. They should never be forced to give any man guardianship.

When it is a straightforward family, the law is perfectly set up to recognise it. You just need to inform it that you ARE a family. Job done.

Yes, of course irish law (and international law) is set up that people marry to be classed as a family, because that is the SOLE purpose of marrying! You become your spouses family. What do you think it is for otherwise?

Imagine just for a second that a man had automatic rights to his child and a woman didnt. Crazy isnt it? Now can you see how backward it is that a man doesnt have automatic guardianship and custody rights.

Anyways..whatever age suits the couple.

eviltwin

I've never known a single couple who married so they could have children. Do people still see some shame in having children out of wedlock?

meeeeh

pwurple wrote: »

Mad_lad, i don't know what you think marriage is, it's simply a legal contract transferring the link between you and your own parents (next of kin, inheritence, guardianship etc) to you and your wife. People get all wrapped up in some idea of what marriage is, it's just a set of legal constructs in a nice tidy bundle. You can go off and arrange some of them individually, like guardianship, but don't be moaning and groaning that it's awkward for you, when there's a very straightforward way of doing it that you are deliberately avoiding.

The law isn't psychic. You have to tell it about your new arrangement.

Plenty of women don't actually want the father of the child to have any guardianship rights over the child. It suits the women who want that option, to not have the name on the birth cert mean rights are handed over. How would that be accomplished otherwise?

Plenty of other European countries make it a lot easier for cohabiting couples and give a lot more rights to unmarried fathers. There's a bit of an agenda there. However automatic right to father's name on the cert also means that abusive partner or a rapist would have automatic right.

Anyway 22 wasn't that young when people left the school at 16 or earlier and were working for a while. I'm from different country and my parents were married at 27/28 and were probably older people than most of their peers. I think people still have kids (or get married if they want to) earlier where I come from. Partly because often they have one child or max two and women start building their career after the kids. Among people from my high school class there are quite a few solicitors, doctors and other professionals who got married in their twenties. It made sense to settle and have kids at the beginning of the career and then climb up the ladder. I wouldn't want to have kids in mid twenties but there are plenty of people that feel different.

auldgranny

I was married at 19, a mother at 20. Way too young. I was a much better mother to my younger kids than to my older.

padma

meeeeh wrote: »

Plenty of other European countries make it a lot easier for cohabiting couples and give a lot more rights to unmarried fathers. There's a bit of an agenda there. However automatic right to father's name on the cert also means that abusive partner or a rapist would have automatic right.

Anyway 22 wasn't that young when people left the school at 16 or earlier and were working for a while. I'm from different country and my parents were married at 27/28 and were probably older people than most of their peers. I think people still have kids (or get married if they want to) earlier where I come from. Partly because often they have one child or max two and women start building their career after the kids. Among people from my high school class there are quite a few solicitors, doctors and other professionals who got married in their twenties. It made sense to settle and have kids at the beginning of the career and then climb up the ladder. I wouldn't want to have kids in mid twenties but there are plenty of people that feel different.

Plenty of abusive and alcoholic mothers out there who have automatic rights to their kids...lets call it for what it is..discrimination on gender.

pwurple

padma wrote: »

Plenty of abusive and alcoholic mothers out there who have automatic rights to their kids...lets call it for what it is..discrimination on gender.

Plenty of fathers who also want nothing to do with the mother of their child.

Let's call it what it actually is, a choice.

You can become a legal family, or you can remain legal strangers. There is nothing wrong with either. It's a set of choices that can be made.

Turning one into the other doesn't do much for those choices.

padma

pwurple wrote: »

Plenty of fathers who also want nothing to do with the mother of their child.

Let's call it what it actually is, a choice.

You can become a legal family, or you can remain legal strangers. There is nothing wrong with either. It's a set of choices that can be made.

Turning one into the other doesn't do much for those choices.

Thats no reason to deny them the same right as mothers. Parents are a plural not a singular.

What choice is there when a man has no choice by law.

pwurple

padma wrote: »

Thats no reason to deny them the same right as mothers. Parents are a plural not a singular.

What choice is there when a man has no choice by law.

?? They have a choice. Guardianship is automatic when they get married. You can also arrrange it separately through a solicitor. It's opt-in rather than opt-out.

Where the choice has been removed is the bonkers cohabitation laws. Where men are getting sued for maintenance of their ex-girlfriend after a breakup without ever being married because they cohabited for the time limit.

javagal

I don't think the OP was asking about a debate on a father's rights.

To answer your question, I too think it depends on the couple, I got married last year at 25 after being with my partner 8 years and we have a 2 year old. He's my best friend and has been since I was 16 so I had no doubts about it, on the other hand, my mother is in a long term commited relationship with her partner and at 50, has no intentions of ever getting married and it suits everyone just fine.

I've never been one to do what was expected of me or do the norm, we eloped as it was what we wanted, not what was expected.

padma

pwurple wrote: »

?? They have a choice. Guardianship is automatic when they get married. You can also arrrange it separately through a solicitor. It's opt-in rather than opt-out.

Where the choice has been removed is the bonkers cohabitation laws. Where men are getting sued for maintenance of their ex-girlfriend after a breakup without ever being married because they cohabited for the time limit.

There is no choice when the couple are no longer together. None at all.

padma

javagal wrote: »

I don't think the OP was asking about a debate on a father's rights.

To answer your question, I too think it depends on the couple, I got married last year at 25 after being with my partner 8 years and we have a 2 year old. He's my best friend and has been since I was 16 so I had no doubts about it, on the other hand, my mother is in a long term commited relationship with her partner and at 50, has no intentions of ever getting married and it suits everyone just fine.

I've never been one to do what was expected of me or do the norm, we eloped as it was what we wanted, not what was expected.

I dont think they were either..but.. there shouldnt be offhand remarks about the unsuitability of a parent to be a parent which is in essence what it is when a father is left with no rights.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

I've never known a single couple who married so they could have children. Do people still see some shame in having children out of wedlock?

Well I didn't want to have children unless I was married. It wasn't the only reason I got married obviously but I knew I didn't want to have children outside of the security of a marriage. It wasn't for religious reasons either. We both wanted to get married because we love each other and wanted to share our lives. We also had the more practical and prosaic reasons like next of kin rights in mind. If I hadn't married I'm certain I wouldn't have had children. I don't see any shame in having children outside marriage, it just wasn't a choice I'd be happy with for me.

Sibhsoo

pwurple wrote: »

?? They have a choice. Guardianship is automatic when they get married. You can also arrrange it separately through a solicitor. It's opt-in rather than opt-out.

Where the choice has been removed is the bonkers cohabitation laws. Where men are getting sued for maintenance of their ex-girlfriend after a breakup without ever being married because they cohabited for the time limit.

They don't have equal rights to mothers, that's a disgrace.

padma

padma wrote: »

Plenty of abusive and alcoholic mothers out there who have automatic rights to their kids...lets call it for what it is..discrimination on gender.

Absolutely spot on. I'm on my mobile today and couldn't respond to some comments here.

Some hugely insulting comments about men. Seriously!

There are plenty of seriously messed up mothers out there just as much as fathers. Alcoholics, drug addicts.

I'm sure women are well capable of mental abuse also and some physical abuse too.

But the judge will always size with the mother because most of them are male judges. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have more female judges.

I've seen the extent some women will go to stop their fathers visiting their children and is disgusting.

Amirani

Mod

This thread isn't the place to be discussing the rights of unmarried fathers or the existence of unfit parents, that discussion stops now.

Let's get back on topic.

Jack B. Badd

There isn't a "right age" to get married. Imo it's an archaic institution that has no place in the modern world.

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

Well I didn't want to have children unless I was married. It wasn't the only reason I got married obviously but I knew I didn't want to have children outside of the security of a marriage. It wasn't for religious reasons either. We both wanted to get married because we love each other and wanted to share our lives. We also had the more practical and prosaic reasons like next of kin rights in mind. If I hadn't married I'm certain I wouldn't have had children. I don't see any shame in having children outside marriage, it just wasn't a choice I'd be happy with for me.

How does marriage offer you security ? Security from what ?

Surely if ye love each other then you don't need marriage to share your lives ?

You would sacrifice the joys of children if you had not got married ?

It seems like most of the time it's the women who are in control of things, marry me or hit the road pal !

I had a funny, or scary dream depending how you see it last night.

My mother organised a surprise marriage for us and non of my friends were invited !

Must have posted too late last night on this topic lol

lazygal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How does marriage offer you security ? Security from what ?

Surely if ye love each other then you don't need marriage to share your lives ?

You would sacrifice the joys of children if you had not got married ?

Marriage is a practical legal way to cement a relationship. It's not all flowers and sunshine. If we're not married I have no.next of kin rights. He doesn't have automatic next of kin rights to our children. There's myriad legal and financial benefits to being married and I think it's the easiest and most cost efficient way to make a relationship secure in terms of children and other things.
I have already said I wouldn't have had children outside of marriage. I was lucky to meet the right person and get married and was able to have children. I know I wouldn't have been able to parent alone or deal with parenting with someone I wasn't in a relationship. I'm.not saying my choices are right for everyone. I was commenting on the view that people don't get married to have children.
It's very easy to say marriage is just a piece of paper and ask why you need it at all until you're in a situation where being married makes a massive difference to how things can pan out.

Synyster Shadow

I got married at 24 we were ready and had discussed it and we now have two small kids 12 months apart.. I've had health problems and family history is on the back of my mind.. I decided I wanted kids and not live in the what if but should the worst happen they have there Dad and I know I have someone to make the right choices for them if I wasn't here. And if I'm on life support he knows what I want and will see to them as I know my parents won't.. In a lot of ways it is security but its also a future that we want and set up..

FactCheck

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

There isn't a "right age" to get married. Imo it's an archaic institution that has no place in the modern world.

The modern world needs a way to manage inheritance rights, tax rights, next of kin duties, medical decisions, rights to the family home and the myriad of other complicated legal and financial decisions that come when two people's lives are intimately entwined for decades.

Now if people don't want to use marriage they are free to go to the solicitors and most (though not all) of the above can be arranged and codified. It'll cost hundreds of euros and they will need to return every year or two to make sure they are up to date as laws/their circumstances change.

Most people do not consider that a sensible use of their time and money however and that's why society also offers marriage as a quick one-size-fits-most way of working that out. Some people don't want it but it suits most people just fine.

If you are going to be in a long term relationship the reality is that one day, either you or they is going to get very sick and die. This is a guarantee, but most people refuse to think about it until they hit 50 or so. The odds are that one day though, one of you is going to be lying in that hospital bed unable to make their desires known, and the other one is going to have to make the tough decisions.

If you aren't married, you may find it very difficult to even be in the hospital room. The decisions are not up to you, they are up to your partner's parents. Now maybe everybody gets on great and Mammy would never overrule you? Well that's before the stress and strain of her darling child being on their deathbed. Mammy has the legal right to ban you from the hospital, refuse to listen to you or her child's wishes, and kick you out of the house she just inherited.

Now obviously Mammy would never do that and there are (complicated, expensive) ways to make sure she can't. But most people are happy just to get married and give the relationship automatic legal protection.

So the answer to the thread's question, IMO, the right age to get married is the age at which you're quite sure you are in it for the long haul, and you want the law to recognise that you are each other's next of kin.

I'd also be roughly guided by the research that says that having a college degree and being over 25 when you marry is correlated with having a seriously reduced chance of divorce - but there are certainly exceptions to that and I'd never think people marrying at 23 without further education were automatically making a mistake - I know lots of long, happy marriages who did that.

eviltwin

I got married at 31 after 12 years together, we had the child and the house and we were happy with that. We only got married to protect our investment in the house. I personally don't see marriage as having an real relevance anymore apart from the legal issues. I don't see it as a sign of commitment, I don't believe that it makes you more connected as a couple or more of a family. The security it gives people is in their head a lot of the time. I don't regret getting married but it would have been nice if we had some kind of option like a civil partnership that we could have gone with instead that would have protected us from inheritance tax and given us legal rights as next of kin but not bound us to each other the way marriage does. Its ridiculous that to protect a house I BOUGHT!! or to have a right to see a man I have been with nearly 20 years and built a life with that we had to marry.

FactCheck

eviltwin wrote: »

Its ridiculous that to protect a house I BOUGHT!! or to have a right to see a man I have been with nearly 20 years and built a life with that we had to marry.

Yes but when they changed the law to make it so that unless you opt out, you have some rights after 5 years of living together, people complained about that. There's no pleasing everybody I guess.

If you make it automatic people complain they have no control over it and if you make it so you have to have a formal legal tie people complain that they ought not to have to jump through hoops.

Sam Kade

auldgranny wrote: »

I was married at 19, a mother at 20. Way too young. I was a much better mother to my younger kids than to my older.

The same age as my sister in law got married she was barely out of school and married. She wasn't pregnant either. 10 years and 3 children later they split up.

eviltwin

FactCheck wrote: »

Yes but when they changed the law to make it so that unless you opt out, you have some rights after 5 years of living together, people complained about that. There's no pleasing everybody I guess.

If you make it automatic people complain they have no control over it and if you make it so you have to have a formal legal tie people complain that they ought not to have to jump through hoops.

What I'm saying is there should be some middle ground for those who want to have legal protection without having to marry. My house is my house, I paid for it but if we hadn't married and one of us died the person who had invested in it would have a higher tax bill than a family member who put nothing into it. That is just bonkers.

meeeeh

FactCheck wrote: »

The modern world needs a way to manage inheritance rights, tax rights, next of kin duties, medical decisions, rights to the family home and the myriad of other complicated legal and financial decisions that come when two people's lives are intimately entwined for decades.

Actually the modern world offers quite good protection and laws for unmarried couples. Ireland doesn't.

FactCheck

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually the modern world offers quite good protection and laws for unmarried couples. Ireland doesn't.

Forgive me, but this seems like a bit of a soundbite. Exactly what laws do most western countries offer, that Ireland doesn't?

Literally the only one I can think of is France's PACS system.

There is a popular misconception that "common law" marriages are protected by law but nowadays this is almost never the case.

In the UK unmarried couples have considerably less protection than they do in Ireland.

lazygal

"Common law" partner is one of the most misused and incorrectly used terms by people who seem to think it means loads of legal things. Any solicitor will tell you the quickest, easiest and cheapest way to sort out things with a partner is to spend the €200 quid and ten minutes required to marry or have a civil partnership rather than endless contracts and legal agreements.