Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is getting married still worth it nowadays?

245

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,555 ✭✭✭mulbot




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,044 ✭✭✭optogirl


    Potential suicide (drowning) so insurance say that if they 'deem it likely' to have been self inflicted they will not pay out. Waiting for inquest and then the fight begins.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭yagan


    Civilizations adapt. Some societies still think cousin marriage is ok but end up with high birth defect rates, Qatar I believe has it bad.



  • Posts: 3,330 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    A couple with a child, where only one spouse works, will pay about 5 grand less in tax each year simply by being married.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,845 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    Oh ****, I'm so sorry to hear that. I hope they don't muck you about too much.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,373 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    Can I just clear up the whole automatic guardianship thing. If you are not married but are living together for at least 12 months in a row (3 months after the birth) then the father automatically has guardianship rights. Yes these are also granted upon marriage as well but it doesn't affect it if you've been living together.

    As for me - I think marriage is worth it if you're doing it for the right reasons, the actual marriage & not some big party. A wedding and a marriage are two very different things.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭Joe286


    I'd say we are heading towards a UK divorce rate. That's 50%. I would not make a distinction between divorce and separation.

    I think if you decide to get married having a property investment is a good idea and one kept in your name. Thus you have a place to live. If it goes pear shaped. Plus a small escape fund.

    Keep your family small. Two kids

    This might seem cynical but I know too many dads living in **** accommodation while the wife has the run of the house.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,019 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    i worked for one employer who was massively prejudiced against non married staff. Holidays, shifts, training courses, sick leave etc…. All first preference and first option was given to married people or people with families of which 99% of those were married in that job. This was regardless of their seniority.

    Funny how it’s extremely incendiary / illegal to discriminate against people, based on sexuality, gender, race / nationality, disability etc……. But hey, a person who is single and or childless, it’s completely acceptable in some circles like employment to basically throw them and their rights / entitlements away when it suits some other parties, especially married people…. So I’d say based on what I witnessed and experienced it’s probably worth it yeah.. 😅

    None of the married gang minded one bit of course. 🤪



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    The expense of the wedding will pale to the expense of the divorce - the “wedding” itself can be as expensive or as reasonable as you both wish -most couples agree on the type of day they want first -budget comes later🤪

    As long as a lot of aspects of society still favour married people more from a financial perspective - everything from insurance to tax to inheritance etc then yes it’s probably the way to go.

    Is that reason enough to get married? Probably not if you’re independently wealthy - I’m probably olde fashioned and believe in love as the foundation of a good marriage - maybe that’s an outdated thing now - I’d hate to think people in general are getting married purely because of financial benefits - I know there was a well publicised case a few years ago of a same sex couple who weren’t even in a relationship but that was more the exception I would have thought - but yeah love for me is the foundation not money - but I’m totally accepting many marriages don’t work out - I’d probably be in favour of much more straightforward and cheap divorces especially when kids aren’t involved - I don’t care about “divorce” figures these days - they’re no one’s business but the couple at hand - but I’d like to see a fair divorce process - not sure it is right now



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 172 ✭✭Wezz


    Funny I've been thinking about this myself. I'm in a LTR, no kids and we are hoping to buy a house in the new year. We rent currently. I have concerns about what the implications are if we have a house and one of us dies, does the other have to pay tax on the inheritance. We don't intend to have children so the father's rights bit is moot but I kind of like the idea of her being my next of kin in the event of something happening and vice versa.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 450 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It comes from the view that children need their mother more because she's more nurturing and present. An old fashioned, simplistic view, and one that's plain wrong when it comes to some mothers, but that's the reason for it - and there was probably more truth to it way back when men looking after children alone was just not a thing.

    It's not just because she has a vagina.



  • Posts: 450 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Marriage imo is just a formality to protect people in the event of their relationship ending - pretty unromantic. However, marriages of convenience aside, love does have to come into it when you're agreeing to be tethered together forever. I'm not cynical for the sake of it - what it confers on the couple in terms of becoming family is very important. If an unmarried couple had the right to the same though, it would eliminate the heartache of divorce should the relationship end. And these massive weddings are absurd.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭yagan


    Being married does make it easier as the house would be your joint estate. I don't know the exact procedure to getting tax clearance for inheriting in non married long term established relationship but I'd imagine it's just a little more drawn out.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,124 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    If unmarried couples had the same rights as married couples, then the unmarried couples would have the exact same problems when they break up. It would be divorce by another name.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,047 ✭✭✭✭cj maxx


    If you both love each other , or are even compatible and know exactly what you both want , be it children a house or a farm to provide income , marriage is definitely worth a go . If you’re just doing it because it’s expected , you’re better off alone . From a bitter divorcee



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,691 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Off topic, but for the record discrimination on the grounds of marital or family status is unlawful.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,691 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    This. There's no version of relationship breakdown in which splitting up one household to establish two households isn't going to be massively expensive, with both parties bearing suffering financial impact. Marriage provides a framework for negotiating and allocating those costs, but the costs arise, and you need a framework for dealing with them, whether you are formally married or not. Increasingly the trend is to assimilate the treatment of non-marital couples on relationship breakdown to the treatment of married couples on divorce — i.e. to give the courts the same powers to order property transfer, maintenance payment, etc regardless of whether the couple are married or not.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,623 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    No, it's because she has a womb, and carried the kids for nine months.

    Proper order, too, because she has bonded to the kids during those nine months in a way that's not possible for a person- with-a-penis.

    Post edited by Mrs OBumble on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,623 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    There is nothing about civil marriage which guarantees that a couple are exclusive, or conjugal.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4 thegreenapple


    Very sad society we live in if two people can't make these commitments work. Especially if there is kids involved.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 348 ✭✭watchclocker


    Jesus thats terrible I'm sorry for your loss and for your fight :(



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,691 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    We don't really have "civil marriage" in this country; just marriage. We have civil weddings and we have religious weddings and we have humanist weddings, but they all lead to the same marriage.

    But, yeah, there is nothing about a civil wedding that can guarantee the couple involved are, or will be, exclusiv, or conjugal. For that matter, there is nothing about a religious wedding or a humanist wedding to guarantee that either.

    But the legal, social, adminsitrative etc status of marriage is designed to support a relationship that is exclusive and conjugal and, regardless of what kind of ceremony a couple chooses to inaugurate the status for themselves, it will involve making public, solemn, witnessed commitments that involve exclusivity and conjugality.

    There's nothing to stop a couple who don't intend to be exclusive, or don't intend to be conjugal, from marrying. (Or, a couple may marry intending that but later decide it's not what they want.) Either way, they may find that the status they are taking on is not the best fit with the relationship they have, or want to have. And, of course, they may recognise that and still choose to take on the status; the legal incidents of marriage may not suit them perfectly, but still suit them better than not being married at all.

    Nobody should marry without having given the question a good deal of thought. And, for a couple who don't intend exclusivity or conjugality or whose relationship doesn't fit the template in some other significant way have some extra things to think about. I wouldn't say they shouldn't marry, but they certainly shouldn't marry without thinking about those things.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 379 ✭✭89897


    If you're considering marriage and dont see it as worth the hassle as divorces are expensive then you shouldnt be getting married and definitely shouldnt be committing to anyone. Where homeownership and kids are involved a breakup is just as messy as a divorce in terms of finances etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 172 ✭✭Wezz


    That's what I was thinking. We'll both be putting a lot of money into a house so it makes sense to protect that investment as much as we can.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,953 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    Its a personal thing if you ask me, There is no right or wrong answer, Circumstance differ from couple to couple,

    I'm glad i got married & would never regret it ,



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭yagan


    Then there's also automatic power of attorney if one of you becomes very ill.

    This could become very tricky in an unmarried situation where well meaning family can make an already difficult situation more complicated with legal challenges etc...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 212 ✭✭Kathnora


    Aside from the financial and legal benefits I see marriage as a public statement of life long (hopefully!) commitment to each other. There's just an added security to it I think especially when there are children involved. It seals the relationship, puts it on a more permanent footing and sends out the message that this relationship is for life (hopefully, of course!)



  • Posts: 450 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Unless she's a piece of sh1t mother to the kids.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,500 ✭✭✭Aisling(",)


    I'm in a similar boat.8 years together and we bought our house 3.5 years ago.

    For inheritance purposes you and your partner are considered strangers for tax purposes and if one of you die the other is liable to capital acquisitions tax(CAT) at 33% on everything over €16,250. There is an exemption for your home though called the dwelling house exemption. If you have resided in the property for 3 years before you inherit and plan on staying in it for 6 more years you can inherit it tax free. There's a few other conditions like you can't own another property etc. We always joked that after 3 years one of us would have a suspicious accident.

    You can name her as your next of kin in your will but she would still taxed on any benefit she receives over the €16,250.

    We're not planning on having kids but we do plan on getting married at some point. If one of us found out we were sick it'd be the first (non medical treatment) thing we'd do to make sure the other is looked after. just in case and that we'd be the person able to make medical decisions if needed.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 450 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Surely not being tethered together in the eyes of the law makes ending the union easier? Divorce can be a crazily drawn out process.



Advertisement