A huge expense if you go for a traditional hotel wedding and possibly an even bigger expense to clean up the mess if you break up.
Is it worth the hassle?
If you don't believe in investing in a lifelong commitment then legal marriage won't matter to you.
It is possible to secure a divorce at minimal expense, but it requires both parties cooperating.
I've even known a couple who had a divorce party together!
Marriage from a legal perspective is very much worth it, there are significant tax benefits and importantly more rights for a father in the unfortunate event of a break up.
Big church weddings with 300 guests followed by an expensive hotel wedding are not worth it though and it can be done in a much smaller civil ceremony (or none at all just the couple filling the forms).
That's really helpful thank you. I didn't realise you could avoid the tax if you have lived in the house 3 years or more, good to know that is in there. I'd still be inclined to get married though just for the peace of mind of not having to worry about one of us dying within those three years. And then there is the next of kin stuff, my partner is a doctor and she's told me stories of patients not having their wishes respected and their partners not being able have a say in their care. Stuff like that does make me think about how we take our relationships for granted and don't consider the legal and financial implications if the worst happens.
Was responding so a poster saying unmarried couples should be given the same entitlements as married couples. In which case it would need the same procedures for splitting assets and parental responsibility as a normal divorce.
Sexist drivel.
And does that mean that adoptive mothers are second class mothers?
There's nothing whatsoever about a religious marriage that guarantees they are, or will remain so, either.
So much wrong and nonsensical about this - not least the last 4 words. Can we not say MAN anymore?
Being a woman and carrying a child doesn't mean that you'll automatically be a good mother, or a good partner, nor does it mean that you should be "rewarded" with all the assets by default in the event of a relationship breakdown.
Not even remotely true, at least not solely because women have vaginas! It’s more to do with the fact that in divorce proceedings where there are children involved - the wife is more often most likely the children’s primary caregiver, and the Courts aren’t keen to see children evicted from the family home. That’s divorce though, as in that’s the ending of a marriage. A couple would actually have to be married first, in order to get divorced, and they must have seen marriage worth it at some point in order to do so. Looking back in hindsight because the marriage didn’t work out doesn’t mean a father loses automatic guardianship rights or property rights for that matter. If there’s any outstanding loans secured against the value of the property, they still have to be paid:
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/court-rules-woman-must-pay-ex-husband-e1-6-million-in-divorce-settlement-1386498.html
Still worth it to get married? Absolutely. It offers far more security and benefits than the alternative, and because it’s a joint partnership it means both parties contributing to the relationship increases security and benefits for both parties and any children as a result of the marital relationship.
Gestation doesn't make the mother a good mother. But it means she has a bond that no one else can possibly have. Breaking this bond is an act of violence.
And I can say "man". But the word seems to have changed meaning, so I'd rather use a biologically correct description.
Irish Law doesn’t see it quite the same way as you do Mrs OB, not in relation to lesbian couples who become parents at least, where one spouse provides the egg, and the other provides the gestational equipment:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/same-sex-couple-both-recognised-as-parents-of-their-children-after-lengthy-campaign-1.4706046
Ne’er a mickey in sight 🤔
It hasn't changed meaning at all.
And some mothers are abusive and neglectful, and it's not at all in the child's interest to remain with them, irrespective of the early biological bond.
I think it all comes down to what you consider its "worth" to be. Worth the commitment and vows or worth the financial outgoing.
Very heavy chat for this hour of a Saturday. Have to find a light hearted topic somewhere
Way too risky these days. The amount of people I know who aren't even 40 yet and their marriage is over already is unbelievable.
Those very big weddings tend to be boring and functional. Most people see weddings as a chore but those big weddings are very forgettable. Just money making exercises.
I once saw a wedding invite saying "no trash, just cash". No class. I saw another one where the bride-to-be printed her bank account and sort code on the invite! Granted she was a foreigner marrying an Irish lad.
Yes it is. Find yourself a good woman (or a man), bond with each other, travel, get drunk, talk about life the universe & everything, fart in each others company, copulate, smoke weed and make a date to tie the knot, sorted.
Then settle into married life and enjoy the ride with, or without children, it's great 👍
Married people live longer too unless they get ill or get hit by a falling tree in a storm.
Maybe women are more trustworthy? Men are more likely to be abusive or alcoholics etc. That probably has more to do with it than any body parts.
You're still dodging the question. If gestation is so important, are adoptive mothers second-class mothers?
If your asking this question then you don't understand what marriage is all about and so your not ready for it. Marriage is a formal statement of commitment which has intrinsic psychological value, the sort of commitment unmarried couples are not making and renders their bond weaker.
Is marriage still worth it? Yes.
Yes , adoptive mothers are 2nd best. Foster mothers are 3rd best.
Sometimes, adoption is inevitable, if a woman is dead, or so badly damaged that there is no hope of her being able to parent effectively, ever.
But it should be only a last resort.
Totally. Actually found out in recent years that one set of grandparents actually went on the run after the Easter rising as he'd been a blacksmith who made adhoc rifles and was on the RIC wanted list. They lived in the US and he returned to the forge after the treaty.
When I was growing up granny was a quiet woman with a spark in her eye, interested in all everyone did, but never talked about the revolution years. She lost two anti treaty brothers in the civil war.
They're working off old research (or no research). The more recent research has found that the primary care giver has the big boost in oxytocin which is the hormone that causes thefamily bonds.
In the case of a single dad, the dad has the spike they usually see in women. Women are more commonly the primary care giver and they can do things like breastfeeding which also gives a boost in oxytocin. But it's not exclusive to women or mothers. It's just a function of who is the primary care giver.
Not if you are marrying a liberal feminist type of women. Only one person is going to wear the trousers in that marriage. I don't mean that I agree that men should be dominating their wives either but we know that in many modern marriages women get a kick out of bullying their beta husbands hence why the marriages often break down.
If you joint buy a house and you get separated/divorced.
You're up **** creek with regards housing and also legal fees.
Ok. You're assuming someone has to be dominant and you're also assuming nobody wants to allow their partner to take the lead role in their relationship. You're also precluding the idea that a couple would just divide the labour in their relationship to suit their preferences.
I know plenty of liberal feminist womenwho are great partners in strong relationships. They are just in modern relationships where the partners divide the labour according to both having careers so it wouldn't suit an old-school stay-at-home-mam dynamic.
Did it ever occur to you that you could have a happy relationship where both partners share responsibilities?
I am not sure you live in the real world, there are plenty of (technical) mothers who are biological who are neither 1st class or formed the bond you mention, but there are plenty of adoptive and foster mothers who would be better by miles for a child.
it is actually horrific that someone hasn't realised this in this day and age. I am actually livid for those who have given everything to look after a child and raise them well but hasn't ticked a biology box for you are somehow 2nd or 3rd class, you should be ashamed of yourself.
I hope, for you, it is merely a side affect for not having much experience of the real world that you have somehow, luckily, been shielded.
Any evidence or citations for this tosh or is it just your personal opinion? Especially in a world of adopting parents and gay parents and lesbian parents and more?
Any evidence or citations for this tosh or is it just your personal opinion? Especially in a world of so many divorces and break downs in such relationships - how is anyones "bond weaker" due to not signing one particular social document?
Just curious - If/when an unmarried couple living together have children who decides what surname their off springs have - is it up to the couple to decide or is there some law that stipulates that it must be the mothers ? Reason I ask is that one of our neighbours are in that exact situation and both their sons have their mothers surname.
They can call the child whatever they want. Same as everyone else.
That’s a bulllshyt mantra thrown out by misandrists who play the victim in some cases . Abuse happens on both sides . I know a couple of men who found themselves in an abusive relationship were the woman was the abuser . But women’s aid and courts always find against men
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4cec391907692e03de872dc3bc1196b2.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f6ec3b6ae14cc6cd4a0e3a3374e0ef7b.svg)
