Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Nov 12, 2014 13:55:49 GMT -5
OMG you're not married?!?!!? SINNER!!!!!!!! LOL. And we SPAWNED. We're double sinners! LOL! That's not possible. Everybody know you can't have babies until you get married and then kiss. We married because I wanted to purchase more real estate. DH2 had been proposing for about 3/4 years (we lived together) and when I found some land I wanted to buy I decided it was time even though we were already common potters. Don't ask but that's when I decided it was a good idea. I'm still not sure it was 22 years later.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 12, 2014 13:59:31 GMT -5
Peace Of Mind, your new icon caused water to go on my monitor. Thanks...
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Nov 12, 2014 14:43:22 GMT -5
I struggle with this question myself. After I got married, I didn't magically feel different. My commitment to my husband didn't just automatically appear during the ceremony, it was already there way beforehand. There is an element of societal and religious blessing for shacking up. . As I get older, I see some of the other, legal benefits. But ultimately, it comes down to commitment, and looking at how many divorces there are, it seems that level of commitment is separate from marriage status. I don’t feel fully committed without marriage. Exclusivity isn't a concern, but I can’t fully embrace the couple mindset, the idea that the partnership is bigger than the individual, without that legal bind. Before marriage it’s an at will relationship. Every decision that benefits one individual more than the other feels risky, as if it could blow up in your face at any moment. I can follow someone, wait for someone, support them, but I can’t shake the trepidation that it will all be for naught. I have an escape hatch, a back-up plan, even if it is only in my mind. Marriage doesn't guarantee anything, but it is a goodwill show for future considerations. It allows me to be bolder in my life decisions and feel more at ease in the relationship. I can fully commit, because what’s good for the couple can supersede what’s good for the individual. I think that it just comes down to the fact we're different people. I couldn't agree to get married without the feeling of true commitment first. That's one reason my DH is the first (and only) and not the 3rd.
|
|
lynnerself
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 11:42:29 GMT -5
Posts: 4,166
|
Post by lynnerself on Nov 12, 2014 14:55:26 GMT -5
I married at 20, because that was how you did it back then (married 40 yrs next March.) I still think it is probably the best situation for raising children. Especially if one spouse is part time or SAH.
DH and I have discussed what would happen now if either of us were to die. We hope the other would find new companionship and love. But agree to not marry again because of inheritance issues.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 12, 2014 15:05:20 GMT -5
Thank you for asking. His heart is doing great-no rejection issues at all. The weird and challenging stuff is the by products of the meds, like diabetes issues. Sometimes big swings in sugar due to the meds. Some of the pills he has had to take for decades, he can't take and this causes other wierd issues, like gout. Gout, good grief. So his feet hurt. That makes walking fun. We will get through it, I mean, there's not much choice, but wow. You think the hard part is over when you get the heart and it doesn't reject. NOT!!!
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 12, 2014 16:24:50 GMT -5
Wow. I'm glad his heart is doing good but yeah, those other issues sound painful and rough
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 2:23:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 17:56:48 GMT -5
DH and I did everything "backwards". We got pregnant, he moved in, then he bought half the house we were living in, then we bought 4 rentals, and then we got married. We got married partly for financial reasons. Civil partnerships had already existed here for years, but at the time, inheritance laws definitely favored marriage over civil partnerships. A year or two after we married, Sarkozy changed the laws on that. But we're still married nonetheless. And then gay marriage was voted in and everything became completely equal (as far as I know). The summer we married (2005), we were one of 3 very long-term couples our age (40s) with property and kids that got married that same summer. I'm guessing they also did it at least partly for the same reason (but I didn't ask).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 2:23:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 4:35:49 GMT -5
We didn't want kids so didn't really need to get married. I think we mostly did because it was kind of expected I guess. Neither one of us were just dying to be married. I'm glad we did. I'm not sure we would have stuck it out through the rough spots without the contract. Maybe we would have, but I'm not sure. The rough spots are all behind us now.
|
|
marvholly
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 6,540
|
Post by marvholly on Nov 13, 2014 6:50:09 GMT -5
I married at 20, because that was how you did it back then (married 40 yrs next March.) I still think it is probably the best situation for raising children. Especially if one spouse is part time or SAH. DH and I have discussed what would happen now if either of us were to die. We hope the other would find new companionship and love. But agree to not marry again because of inheritance issues. Lynn That describes best exactly where my thinking is at.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,150
|
Post by giramomma on Nov 13, 2014 9:01:04 GMT -5
I struggle with this question myself. After I got married, I didn't magically feel different. My commitment to my husband didn't just automatically appear during the ceremony, it was already there way beforehand. There is an element of societal and religious blessing for shacking up. . As I get older, I see some of the other, legal benefits. But ultimately, it comes down to commitment, and looking at how many divorces there are, it seems that level of commitment is separate from marriage status. I don’t feel fully committed without marriage. Exclusivity isn't a concern, but I can’t fully embrace the couple mindset, the idea that the partnership is bigger than the individual, without that legal bind. Before marriage it’s an at will relationship. Every decision that benefits one individual more than the other feels risky, as if it could blow up in your face at any moment. I can follow someone, wait for someone, support them, but I can’t shake the trepidation that it will all be for naught. I have an escape hatch, a back-up plan, even if it is only in my mind. Marriage doesn't guarantee anything, but it is a goodwill show for future considerations. It allows me to be bolder in my life decisions and feel more at ease in the relationship. I can fully commit, because what’s good for the couple can supersede what’s good for the individual. I sort of felt like you. DH went out and bought a new car right a week before we got married. I felt I had no say, because we weren't married. It took us a long time to combine the finances we did combine. And we haven't combined everything yet. Even up to the day before the wedding, I felt I owed DH jack squat. However, I was also in a marriage for the first 5 years, what's good for the individual superseded what was good for the marriage. For the first decade of our relationship (dating, engagement, and 5 years of marriage) we had no partnership. (Shoot, my parents have been married for 40 years, together for 42ish, I think, and they've rarely had a partnership.) My experiences were enough to stop making me naive about how marriage works, how people work. And, I have to have a real escape plan, at least for the next 16 years, even though I'm happily married today.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 13, 2014 9:08:23 GMT -5
I married at 20, because that was how you did it back then (married 40 yrs next March.) I still think it is probably the best situation for raising children. Especially if one spouse is part time or SAH. DH and I have discussed what would happen now if either of us were to die. We hope the other would find new companionship and love. But agree to not marry again because of inheritance issues. Lynn That describes best exactly where my thinking is at.
SO MUCH THIS!!! If I outlive DF, I'm not even letting anyone move in with me. I worry I'd never get him out again.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 13, 2014 11:00:00 GMT -5
Not really. They're still legally on the hook for helping to care for their children.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Nov 13, 2014 11:19:05 GMT -5
I can't imagine not being married before you have children. A partner can just basically walk away with no commitment. Of course they can married too, but they might think twice.
But I too made that commitment and it was intended for life and so far has been. I think if people thought about it as permanent instead of something they can just walk in and out of there might be less divorces. And staying married is not always easy, you have to work at it. How is it any different regarding commitment to a child? My 'spouse' can walk away any time he wants. He'd still be my child's father and we'd have to work out child support, visitation, divide our assets, dissolve our partnership, etc. If we were legally married we'd still have to do all that AND go to court to get divorced. I also sense the assumption that if we are not married we will not work at our relationship. We work VERY hard on our relationship (some times more than others) and even harder to stay together(IMO) than some married people because we got together because of a pure choice; we did not get together because of religion, family pressure, or society pressure to do so.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 13, 2014 11:22:59 GMT -5
DFs father wasn't legally married to his stepmother. She got pregnant to get him to marry her so he did. In Mexico. Problem was, he was still married to DFs mother. Not sure if stepmom ever knew it or not. Nevertheless, when he died, stepmom and her children were still held to be legally a wife and children. Now his mom could have stepped in and said differently but she chose to taken the high road and keep quiet. DF wonders if his half sister knows.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Nov 13, 2014 11:28:29 GMT -5
But I too made that commitment and it was intended for life and so far has been. I think if people thought about it as permanent instead of something they can just walk in and out of there might be less divorces. And staying married is not always easy, you have to work at it. I think you are making a lot of assumptions, this has more to do with the character of the person you are with, not a piece of paper. Marriage does not mean that someone will stick with you through thick and thin. Lord knows, when I was going through my medical madness, I told TD to run. He refused. While I was in the hospital, he drove 200 miles round trip after work each day to be with me. The rehab facility I was in was even further away, and I had to beg him NOT to visit me every day because I knew how hard that drive was daily. I finally got him to only visit me a 2-3x/week instead. However, I know a LOT of people in my hip group who were married (under God) and their spouses bolted after having to deal with their SO's hip surgery.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 13, 2014 11:32:04 GMT -5
I guess I've very old fashioned. I think people should be married before having children and its a firm commitment. I'm no religious freak but I just think under God we need to be married to live together. I don't care what you folks do, that's just something I believe in. So many traditions have gone by the wayside anymore, I think its the wrong message to give to your kids, but again that is just me. I was also raised that way but when you are penalized tax wise and just about every other way for doing the RIGHT thing. The wrong thing looks like a better plan.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Nov 13, 2014 11:35:11 GMT -5
I think its the wrong message to give to your kids, but again
What exactly is the wrong message? You can quote your scripture to me, but what EXACTLY is the take home here? That two people who love each other and are committed to each other and are stable and caring and loving shouldn't have children? I assume you are therefore against gay people adopting or having children since the likelihood is they aren't married, either? It's too bad the execution of religion is less about love and more about words on a piece of paper.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 13, 2014 11:38:06 GMT -5
However, I know a LOT of people in my hip group who were married (under God) and their spouses bolted after having to deal with their SO's hip surgery. That makes me really sad. I'm glad TD has stuck by you, he sounds like a good one. I agree that the character of your partner and the strength of your union are what matters, not a piece of paper. Marriage can really mean whatever you want it to mean these days. For me, it's a legal and moral (but not religious) bond without which I wouldn't have felt comfortable having children with DH. It's actually a little more than that to me, but I've given up on trying to figure out (or articulate) why. I totally understand how people can be married in their hearts with or without the piece of paper - I loved DH and was 100% committed to him without the piece of paper - but for me, it was more than a piece of paper. It mattered. I didn't feel that we were truly, officially "we" until we had it. Angel! might get a kick out of knowing that since we had the big debate about weddings a year or so ago, I have changed my position on whether it makes any difference whether a couple invites you to their "real" wedding or not. If you're being invited to someone's wedding, that's what it is to them whether they're doing the legal piece of paper or not, and should be celebrated as such.
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 26,217
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Nov 13, 2014 11:47:02 GMT -5
I think its the wrong message to give to your kids, but again
What exactly is the wrong message? You can quote your scripture to me, but what EXACTLY is the take home here? That two people who love each other and are committed to each other and are stable and caring and loving shouldn't have children? I assume you are therefore against gay people adopting or having children since the likelihood is they aren't married, either? It's too bad the execution of religion is less about love and more about words on a piece of paper. I've always wondered about people who stayed in a horrible marriage sending the message to their children"that's just the way it is". I wasn't in a horrible marriage by any means but when I told my son I was filing for divorce - he said "it's about time" Thing is he's been married longer than his dad and I were married
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 13, 2014 11:59:56 GMT -5
I see so many young people bounce in and out of relationships anymore its about like changing clothes, you don't like it, switch. You see people with multiple kids and they all have a different name. How do these children have a feeling of belonging, attachment, and feeling loved. You end up with his, hers, theirs, and theirs, sometimes.
Switching from relationship to relationship is tough on kids for sure. But for people who are inclined to do that, I'm not sure it would make any difference if they married along the way. One person specifically I'm thinking of has two kids by two different dads - older kid is a mess from bonding (or not bonding) with multiple boyfriends of Mom's since day one, including little sibling's father. Would it really have made any difference if the mom had married either of her kids' dads? Those relationships still would have fallen apart because they were trainwrecks waiting to happen. At most, marriage might have delayed the inevitable. There's a pretty substantial difference between doing things that way and doing things the way HoneyBBQ and her DH did, so I do think it's insulting to imply that anyone who isn't married to their child's mother or father is automatically a relationshit-hopper. This is kind of a side note but to me, being careful about who you procreate with is waaaay more important than being careful about who you marry for this reason. Not that they aren't both important. But you can get out of a marriage. Hard to disentangle yourself or your kid from a disaster of a baby mama/daddy.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Nov 13, 2014 12:02:01 GMT -5
You didn't read in the above where I said doesn't matter what any of you do or believe, but its just me.
But I think kids that have parents that aren't married are also less likely to get married and likely take the commitment lightly. Not what any of you mean but I can see how they would. Then the whole institution breaks down.
I dont' care what gays or whatever do either, they can do whatever they like, but no one needs me to approve or do anything about it. I don't really care one way or another.
I see so many young people bounce in and out of relationships anymore its about like changing clothes, you don't like it, switch. You see people with multiple kids and they all have a different name. How do these children have a feeling of belonging, attachment, and feeling loved. You end up with his, hers, theirs, and theirs, sometimes.
Like I said I'm just old. I did read where it said it doesn't matter what I do... I mean, that's a given. This is the internet. I'm trying to point out that your assumptions about people aren't always true. I agree with you that too many people bounce in and out of relationships instead of settling down and being in committed stable relationships before having children with people who are going to provide them with a good home. We agree there. But a marriage doesn't guarantee that; nor does religion. But a stable loving home can and does happen and it doesn't have to happen inside a marriage. A marriage does not promise that a child will be brought up in a loving household. Nor does a lack of marriage indicate otherwise. You would never know we were not married if you lived with us. Just saying. We've been together almost 10 years. Not nearly as long as you and your DH, but certainly longer than many marriages that produce children. I'm not trying to change your mind on anything, believe me, I know that it isn't going to happen. But not all your assertions are true; I'm hoping you can see that sometimes that mold you've created doesn't fit every family.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Nov 13, 2014 12:05:12 GMT -5
Well said!
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 13, 2014 12:09:02 GMT -5
But a stable loving home can and does happen and it doesn't have to happen inside a marriage. A marriage does not promise that a child will be brought up in a loving household. Nor does a lack of marriage indicate otherwise. I think that the difference often comes down to deliberate choices rather than reacting to situation after situation. I'm sleep deprived so the best analogy I can come up with is that it's kind of like the difference between finding a puppy on the side of the road and taking it home with you versus making an informed decision about what kind of dog you want, doing your homework, finding a breeder or shelter, etc. and then taking the dog home with you. Neither scenario actually guarantees that you will love the dog or that s/he will fit in with your home and family forever, but the odds of a happy ending are sure higher in the second scenario than the first. Because in the first situation, you're reacting based on emotion/circumstances. In the second, you're making a deliberate choice about what you want and then making it happen.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 13, 2014 12:15:00 GMT -5
I don't know of any civilized culture that doesn't have some kind of binding commitment in regard to this
Again, though, binding to whom? A friend of mine got out of her bad first marriage after less than a year for around $500. No kids, obviously. Dissolving that "binding" commitment was pretty darn easy and cheap for her and her XH. It was pretty much the same as ending any other long term live in relationship.
Throw kids in the picture and, married or not, I can just about guarantee that working out the details of their continued involvement and shared parenting responsibility would have cost more than $500.
So I don't think marriage, in and of itself, binds two people any more than (for example) signing a lease on an apartment together does. Now kids... kids are a binding commitment in a much greater sense.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 13, 2014 12:20:27 GMT -5
I said when I took them it was for their lives, I am not just throwing them away. BJ the dog will be 11, kitty is 19 in Nov. I believe in commitments
I believe you and that's awesome, but a lot of people end up taking foundlings to a shelter because they don't fit into their lives and/or they didn't think about the commitment they were taking on because they were reacting on emotion and instinct when they found the animal.
Anyway, that wasn't really my point. I said that it was totally possible to have a happy ending in either scenario. Just like it was (theoretically) possible for the woman I mentioned in my last post to stay with her first baby daddy and live happily ever after. But if you're reacting to circumstances, it's less likely IMO that you'll get the outcome you want.
To me, that tends to be the key difference between relationship hopping and settling down with a long term partner. To you, the key difference is marriage. And that's okay. I just disagree.
|
|
steph08
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 13:06:01 GMT -5
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by steph08 on Nov 13, 2014 12:28:20 GMT -5
But a stable loving home can and does happen and it doesn't have to happen inside a marriage. A marriage does not promise that a child will be brought up in a loving household. Nor does a lack of marriage indicate otherwise. I think that the difference often comes down to deliberate choices rather than reacting to situation after situation. I'm sleep deprived so the best analogy I can come up with is that it's kind of like the difference between finding a puppy on the side of the road and taking it home with you versus making an informed decision about what kind of dog you want, doing your homework, finding a breeder or shelter, etc. and then taking the dog home with you. Neither scenario actually guarantees that you will love the dog or that s/he will fit in with your home and family forever, but the odds of a happy ending are sure higher in the second scenario than the first. Because in the first situation, you're reacting based on emotion/circumstances. In the second, you're making a deliberate choice about what you want and then making it happen. My aunt had a Saint Bernard that her son found on the side of the highway during a thunderstorm. That dog was awesome. I miss that dog, and I miss that aunt. I could care less if people get married or not. I'm married. I like being married. If people are happy and have all their legal ducks in a row if they are cohabitants but aren't married, then more power to you. I also really loved my wedding dress. That was a good reason to get married.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Nov 13, 2014 12:42:24 GMT -5
Oh well. I guess it was too much to hope for people to see that there are always one offs. Some people do not believe that you can be a good person if you're an atheist; that's fine. I can't change anyone's mind. I can only demonstrate with my actions.
I don't need a legal contract to love my spouse or be a mother to my child. I do that with my heart and my choices and I do it every day. No piece of paper will change that.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Nov 13, 2014 12:50:29 GMT -5
Some people do not believe that you can be a good person if you're an atheist; that's fine. I can't change anyone's mind. I can only demonstrate with my actions.
It appears to be a difficult concept for many to wrap their brain around. It's not that you can't be a good person because this is your own personal moral compass, you MUST be a good person because you believe in some sort of God.
And the corollary to this is assumed true too, that if you believe in God you must be a good person. My dad's sister rented a vacation cabin from someone who offered it in their church bulletin and paid in advance (a significant sum of $$). When she got there, she found it uninhabitable. The idea that someone who goes to church would screw them over never did compute in her brain. She had a dozen rationalizations about this and she never did anything about it.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,097
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 13, 2014 12:51:36 GMT -5
Marriage came about once humans stopped being nomads and became farmers. People needed a way to make sure that their land/stuff stayed "theirs". So you got married because (in theory back before DNA testing) that ensured that any children born were "yours" and that all you owned would remain in your family and not go to someone else's kid. It's also a great way to negotiate business deals. You could secure more land/money if you promised your kid to that person over there who had better stuff than you.
It also ensured blood ties. That's why European royals were always marrying their relatives.
It has absolutely nothing to do with making sure people love each other and are committed to each other. It really doesn't have anything to do with making sure kids are raised in a loving stable environment either.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Nov 13, 2014 12:54:12 GMT -5
To me no official marriage meant not as strong of a commitment. I don't know why. It could be bc I never knew anyone who just lived together while I was growing up. It certainly is not coming from a religious perspective bc I wasn't raised with a religion. Although, by the time I was getting married, the religious ceremony meant a lot more to me than a marriage license or a wedding party. It' just how it was - you get married. Oh sure, you can cheat and then get divorce, but you get married first
|
|