Marriage: is it worth it?

Don't think marriage should be for life, maybe have a 5 year contract and after 5 years you should have a month out of contract where you can go mad, can you imagine having a special night in coppers for out of contract people. It would give people an insensitive to look after themselves better as well keep in better shape. I think a man dies the day he gives up the chase.

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

A boy becomes a man the day he realises he's not the most important thing in the world.
His family are

So you can't be a man (whatever that means) if you don't get married and have kids?

boldrevolt wrote: »

Financially its not actually always worth it.

I know somebody who was in receipt of disability allowance up until she got married.
Now she has to solely rely on her husbands income as the money he is on is above the threshold.

She cant even claim any dole or nothing and ended up in hospital the last time she started working.
She was on disability for a reason.

Both DA and JSA are means-tested, yes.

It is now his responsibility to take care of her.

"In sickness and in health".

The chan chan man wrote: »

I’ve been happily married for about 2 years.
We’ve been married for the past 8.

2 years, u lucky sod, I thought the honeymoon period was some kind of myth, because when I looked back after 2 years, it was no honeymoon, unfunnily, it had been looking back on the 2 years prior to the wedding.

topdecko wrote: »

It all depends on the context. If there are kids involved i would say it is a given that marriage is important due to the protections it confers on the family and the much easier path re: inheritance tax/CGT it creates regarding financial decisions etc. Also it is a commitment to your better half and this should not be trivialised.
If it is 2 adults who are not bothered and don't need the hassle then there seems little point in the endeavour.

Tax reasons are not a good reason to get married, nor should they be, nor should the State be allowed intervene to that extent to essential encourage/pressure based on withholding benefits.

It's wrong that the State can confer responsibilities towards another Adult not married, but not the benefits, re tax, inheritance etc.

I believe inheritance tax for mere mortals should be set at million per civil/cohabiting spouse and children, zero reason a cohabiting partner or child should pay inheritance tax under 1 million, after that it should be a increasing sliding scale. Most mere mortals would never get near 1 million inheritance and could appropriately, reasonably and correctly benefit their lives, could reduce debt or improve their lives in many ways in that it was money/assets their immediate family worked hard to earn and were likely heavily taxed on. A relative small number might pi$$ it down the drain or shoot it up their veins, but Id take the odds rather than the State squander it.

thomasm wrote: »

From a tax perspective, absolutely

Yeh, not the best reason to get married, and depending on what each person earns, there may actually be no immediate month to month benefit unless one of the people involved earns significantly less than the other people and can shift some of their tax credits to the higher earner.

Cienciano wrote: »

If you're not married you have even less rights in regards to kids.

I dont think so, because you actually have quite limited rights anyway, but you dont have less rights not being married (just the same limited rights).
Where you have less rights is (to your children, basically none) if you are not named as a father.
Best scenario I see (for the man), having children, but not being married, maybe even further than that, probably not live with them (unfortunately), unfortunately, for the bloke, he may still very likely get screwed over.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You have to be realistic, perfect marriages can turn to sh*t over in no time, it happens.

cannotlogin wrote: »

I don't know. Never dreamt of the big white dress and wedding and if I was in a position to get married it would be a registry office job without all that centre of attention of a wedding. Lock down wedding would be my ideal.

My parents are together 40 years, still in love and a very strong relationship. I would love that but at the same time you are essentially gambling your assets and future income.

While I would happily sign a pre-nup if they had any legal standing before the wedding but I know myself well enough that if it was a case of just drifting apart, I would never pursue a man for income/assets of I didn't need it to provide for my kids but if he cheated/left me for a young model/friend etc, I would happy screw him for everything he's got.

Given co-habiting bill, would be even wary if a relationship longer than 5 years at the moment.

But, if a woman cheats her husband/left him for someone else, she can still screw him for everything he's got? but it's different for a guy. IMO you're either of the mind to drop someone or not and move on, again IMO especially if there are no kids, but even when there are, the Courts dont look at those circumstances (not that I condone cheating). Personally I think both parties should take what they brought and split what they contributed pro rata per contributions, because it would discourage Marriage piracy. Any childrens care should be 50:50 or pro rata to set limits or based on their incomes or their educational level to the kind of work they could get. Ive heard it mentioned, women couldnt get back into x work after marriage, but guys are expected to live on nothing in very limiting and harsh circumstances.

Stan27 wrote: »

Is it worth it anymore?
Looking at it from mans point of view, but is there any real benefit for it, which is essentially an expensive party.
I know if things go bad and divorce happens, the men seem to get the bad end of the stick.
Obviously there are are a good lot of great marriages out there so it still suits a lot of people.

Just curious of people’s opinions ?

Thats the reception youre thinking about

Stan27 wrote: »

Is it worth it anymore?
Looking at it from mans point of view, but is there any real benefit for it, which is essentially an expensive party.
I know if things go bad and divorce happens, the men seem to get the bad end of the stick.
Obviously there are are a good lot of great marriages out there so it still suits a lot of people.

Just curious of people’s opinions ?

If you have to ask then it's not. Stay single

Marriage is a terrible idea thats why it so popular:cool:

I have an extremely happy second marriage and an unhappy first marriage
which had nothing to do with the institution of marriage we were the wrong people for each other.

You are basically paying a few 100 quid for a piece of paper from MeHole martin that names the person you're supposed to shag for the rest of your days

I dont see the point at all. So many people change in a bad way when they realise the person they married cant escape that easily.

I don’t see marriage as a problem, it’s getting out of it where the problem lies.
Getting divorced is not easy.
Archaic family law in this country which hasn’t seemed to move with the times in regards to equality.

Also there are financial incentives to get married, tax , loans , mortgages ,
That don’t apply unless ye are married, but yet another set of rules come in if you decide to break up unmarried suddenly ye might be treated as if ye were.

It’s the treatment of marriage and laws and stuff in this country that make marriage a bad thing when it goes wrong.
Of course people don’t realise that until they actually have to navigate it.
It should come with a big Disclaimer basically until laws and stuff have been changed.

For men anyway

Would you go skydiving if you knew the chances of the parachute not opening was the same as the chances of a marriage ending in divorce?