Why Did You Get Married?

[Deidre]

So Deidre,

Why are you against the prospect of marriage with this guy.  Is it because you don't want to live with him?  Being married doesn't mean you have to live under the same roof.  Do you want children?

Because suppose he hurts me, and then i have to go through a divorce to end things. Bring kids into the mix, even more holding you there, even if things are not good. I didn't grow up in a household where two people were happily married. So, perhaps, that is skewing my mindset.

[Deidre]

 

 

 

 

Past childhood baggage can be a part of this.....

 

This is such a good point Dee and I am willing to admit this also. My memories in my childhood we're of my father putting my mother up against the wall. We left our home so many times to go to hotels fro the night, I thought the hotel was my home also. Drinking did this to our family. Our whole family were dysfunctional. Don't get me wrong, I have lots f good memories also, but the horrible ones tend to stay in the front of your mind.

 

When I got married, it was going to be for life. Not like any of my family, I was going to do it 'right'. Not so. I allowed people into my life that I should have said, 'no thank you' at the second date. As I said earlier in this thread, I would have been sooo proud to celebrate 50 years with the same person. That deserves a friggin' medal as far as I'm concerned.

 

It does deserve a medal.

 

And yes, I have good memories packed away too, but the overall picture of marriage from my childhood was a dismal one. And I grew up also watching a lot of my uncles cheat on their spouses...it was commonly known in the family. The wives tolerated it. Why, I don't know. They were dependent on those men financially, is my guess.

 

I do like the idea of renewed the marriage license every few years, and if you don't want to, you can just get out of it without a divorce. Imagine you renew the license and your vows over and over and over...your partner would feel so special.

[Deidre]

I can, from my observation, and what people I know have dealt with, told me, what brakes up most marriages is not so much the big things, but the small things.  It can be she nags him incessantly and takes him for granted.  He will not call her when he is going to be late coming home, or he is critical of something about her or what she does.  When neither really communicate, and when I say communicate, does not mean pointing fingers in a mean way at each other or confessing something terrible, but rather listening to each other when there is a problem, knowing enough to care about what has been expressed as important.  Some people think it is necessary to communicate to their spouse every time they talk to someone of the opposite sex or make a big deal if they have friends of the opposite sex and had some fantasy about that other person.  They are your spouse, not your priest you confess to.  Sometimes saying things with well meaning is worse than saying nothing at all.  It is important to cut each other as much slack as possible and then some.  It means there must be give and take.

Something tells me, you are probably a loving husband to your wife, BO. You are right. Do you think you are a better man for marrying, than if you had remained single?

[Leo]

I liked Burnedout's post.

Also Deidre, I feel the same way about the "not marrying kind" of people as I do about the polyamorous or child-free. I'm not trying to put you on a pedestal, but consider this: Most of us married, and didn't really consider other options. Some wanted kids, some of us didn't want to be insensitive pigs and wanted to show the One we loved that we didn't want to just live with Her, but dignify the relationship. (In my case, She in effect proposed, not I, and that was a extreme compliment.) But we are the norm. The supermajority. The trouble with being part of supermajorities is we didn't choose it the way some people choose the child-free lifestyle, or choose to make a life without marriage. So, I personally agree with Burnedout: Life changes, we change, and those of us committed to one another have to renew that commitment in our minds. But I think it's kind of special that there are those who are thinking it all the way through like this, and considering options. Maybe your background plays into it. But surely more than that: You're thinking about it all. To me, that's the most important part. Lots of people with trouble upbringings repeat a lot of what was done there. I grew up in a huge family. And I only have one child, and fixed the situation so I can't reproduce any more. That was a thought through decision. My upbringing may have had something to do with it, but I think it's the thought that really counts when we make these decisions. The thoughts you've clearly put into this. I guess if I was single and dating someone who talked like you, that is what would stick out to me, more than the conclusion itself: the amount of thought you've clearly put into it. I should think a man would wholly respect that.

[Deidre]

I liked Burnedout's post.

Also Deidre, I feel the same way about the "not marrying kind" of people as I do about the polyamorous or child-free. I'm not trying to put you on a pedestal, but consider this: Most of us married, and didn't really consider other options. Some wanted kids, some of us didn't want to be insensitive pigs and wanted to show the One we loved that we didn't want to just live with Her, but dignify the relationship. (In my case, She in effect proposed, not I, and that was a extreme compliment.) But we are the norm. The supermajority. The trouble with being part of supermajorities is we didn't choose it the way some people choose the child-free lifestyle, or choose to make a life without marriage. So, I personally agree with Burnedout: Life changes, we change, and those of us committed to one another have to renew that commitment in our minds. But I think it's kind of special that there are those who are thinking it all the way through like this, and considering options. Maybe your background plays into it. But surely more than that: You're thinking about it all. To me, that's the most important part. Lots of people with trouble upbringings repeat a lot of what was done there. I grew up in a huge family. And I only have one child, and fixed the situation so I can't reproduce any more. That was a thought through decision. My upbringing may have had something to do with it, but I think it's the thought that really counts when we make these decisions. The thoughts you've clearly put into this. I guess if I was single and dating someone who talked like you, that is what would stick out to me, more than the conclusion itself: the amount of thought you've clearly put into it. I should think a man would wholly respect that.

 

Why am I always out of up votes when they matter most.

 

Gosh, Leo, this was such a nice post. I can't thank you enough for not judging me, and sharing your own point of view as you have. You're a really kind man.

 

 

 

So Deidre,

Why are you against the prospect of marriage with this guy.  Is it because you don't want to live with him?  Being married doesn't mean you have to live under the same roof.  Do you want children?

Because suppose he hurts me, and then i have to go through a divorce to end things. Bring kids into the mix, even more holding you there, even if things are not good. I didn't grow up in a household where two people were happily married. So, perhaps, that is skewing my mindset.

 

Remember that email I sent you asking about your parents?  Anyhow I am curious about them.  Whether they are  still alive, were they married when you were born, did they fight a lot, was there a custody battle, were you close to them, do you stay in contact?  If you don't care to share, dont.

 

Matt, that's not something I want to talk about right now.

 

I will say...They were married when I was born, yes. lol You're so weird, sometimes.

[mymistake]

So I do have an honest question I alluded to earlier, for those who would see marriage go away:

How do we do the civil business of hospital visits, inheritance, and so forth? So Deidre gets sick. How do we know the man wanting to come in and help her is the boyfriend and not some creeper "scoping bettys" at the local hospital? I'm honestly not trying to be hostile. I just have this fixation with figuring out how systems work. I think it's an honest question.

There are societies now experimenting with renewals of the contract every few years, I forget which country that is but anyway. Is there a way we can solidify it so people who care about each other can benefit like this, without indicating permanence?

I am genuinely curious: some people here have quite obviously given this a lot of thought.

 

 

Society needs to get with the times.  Everybody can have their own "inner circle" list and keep it updated.  Get a new Significant Other?  Put them on the list.  They cheat on you?  Take them off the list.  We do this now for kids in school.  We provide the school with a list of who is authorized to pick the kids up.

 

Personally I think marriage should be a one year contract that has the option for renewal.  It's more realistic that way.

[Vigile]

BO, be careful. People might just think you have a softer side. That was really nice what you posted there. I guess you're right. But, at the end of the day, maybe it boils down to being the marrying kind, or not being the marrying kind.

Here's something...

 

So, I'm talking with a friend of mine about marriage and such and her dad's friend who's in his mid 50's...recently got married, for the very first time. She said he didn't have a wedding or anything, just a small ceremony. But, he 'finally' met someone worth marrying, was how she put it.

 

''Worth marrying.'' lol

 

Like sitting on a bench at school dance waiting for that perfect guy to pick you. Ohhhh...I'm worthy!

 

 

 

 

I had the same happen to me last evening believe it or not.  I was chatting with an American friend of mine who used to live here in Russia and who is back for a visit.  He's in his mid 50s and never been married, yet he's here in town to get married this weekend.  Could have knocked me over with a feather. 

[VacuumFlux]

So I do have an honest question I alluded to earlier, for those who would see marriage go away:

How do we do the civil business of hospital visits, inheritance, and so forth? So Deidre gets sick. How do we know the man wanting to come in and help her is the boyfriend and not some creeper "scoping bettys" at the local hospital? I'm honestly not trying to be hostile. I just have this fixation with figuring out how systems work. I think it's an honest question.

There are societies now experimenting with renewals of the contract every few years, I forget which country that is but anyway. Is there a way we can solidify it so people who care about each other can benefit like this, without indicating permanence?

I am genuinely curious: some people here have quite obviously given this a lot of thought.

 

I want to know why marriage, with its assumption of romance and sex, is the only legal method we have to alter are kinship. We can't disown our parents; there've been gay couples who couldn't legally get married who, despite doing what paperwork they could, ended up with the estranged homophobe parents making all the decisions when one of them got ill.

 

But what about people in close platonic relationships? Why can't you choose to "adopt" someone as your sibling? I have a close friend that I would never marry, but who I would trust with my life and would gladly have them make decisions for me instead of my parents if I were in the hospital. This is also a person I would want to get some of my stuff if I ever died. Sure, I could do medical Power of Atorney paperwork and write up a will, but... why doesn't the law recognise the rights of close friends? Why aren't we allowed to legally choose a surrogate family? And why couldn't we form kinship bonds with more than one person, especially if it's not about love and sex? I suppose you would have to make it a pretty serious deal legally, and have some messy divorce-type stuff to go through if someone wants to get rid of it (or "divorce" a blood relative! That would be awesome) to prevent abuses. But why in the world does the legal system think that blood relations have rights above and beyond the friends you love and the people you've shared your [non-romantic] life with?

[Deidre]

Lol

 

I'm never getting married so ...that's that I guess. I appreciate everyone's comments.

[Deidre]

 

BO, be careful. People might just think you have a softer side. That was really nice what you posted there. I guess you're right. But, at the end of the day, maybe it boils down to being the marrying kind, or not being the marrying kind.

Here's something...

So, I'm talking with a friend of mine about marriage and such and her dad's friend who's in his mid 50's...recently got married, for the very first time. She said he didn't have a wedding or anything, just a small ceremony. But, he 'finally' met someone worth marrying, was how she put it.

''Worth marrying.'' lol

 

Like sitting on a bench at school dance waiting for that perfect guy to pick you. Ohhhh...I'm worthy!

 

 

 

I had the same happen to me last evening believe it or not.  I was chatting with an American friend of mine who used to live here in Russia and who is back for a visit.  He's in his mid 50s and never been married, yet he's here in town to get married this weekend.  Could have knocked me over with a feather.

Lol

Maybe one worries about growing old without a partner at that point? I'm not sure. :/

[florduh]

 

Are you an atheist....yet?

 

Only when I'm sane

 

Answer of the week. 

[Deidre]

 

Lol

I'm never getting married so ...that's that I guess.

 

I think that is a praiseworthy decision and it is admirable to not back down when people are pressuring you to go mainstream.  I'm not sure If I've ever known someone who is very active with dating but is completely committed to never getting married.  How non ladylike Hehe

 

The only people I've known with that sentiment are those who are intent on remaining single bachelors or whatever a female equivalent to a bachelor is.

A "bachelorette?"

 

I look at this way. I'm single now. If I marry, there's an above 50% chance I'll end up divorced. So, I'm just skipping the marriage part.

lol

[Leo]

now, I'm not supporting the mainstream here, but a couple people wrote some good responses on how people can get assistance when in a hospital, from friends, etc.

First off, the legal system doesn't think blood relatives are superior to friends. The legal system doesn't think, period, because systems don't think. Even those with some artificial intelligence don't think as systems, they think as autonomous members of systems, e.g. cloud server-based bots.

So, knowing the legal system doesn't think at all: Why does it function as though blood relatives are more valid than friends for hospital visits and power of attorney? A simple physics / mechanical answer: The path of least resistance.

So, you could create a living will and have your friends platonic and otherwise, be your power of attorney for medical decisions. Yes, it gets messy. Yes, you're right about all of the challenges with that. But that is what is necessary to ensure you have the people you want making the decisions you want in your time of need. Since we live in a post-industrial society, contracts are how we do things like that, seeing as everybody doesn't know everybody. It seems you are right, this needs to be dissolvable at will. Also, you could have power of attorney for someone else, but they not have power of attorney for you. You are in control because the contract is not a joining the way a corporate buyout or a marriage is. It's your contract, not theirs or mine or anybody's, and it only affects your end of life issues. I'm probably off in the weeds to some extent, since I'm a software engineer and not a qualified legal professional, but I think we could get there from here.

It's important to remember though, that systems don't have attitudes. Even our most intelligent robotic operating systems don't have attitudes yet, though that will probably be in most of our lifetimes. The legal system responds to legal pieces of paper with signatures on them. This would mean you'd need a copy of these document in your bag or something. It would mean you'd need to take papers with you, in the event of an emergency, identifying who it is you authorize to make legal decisions. If you did that, blood wouldn't matter. Blood is, what we in software would call the "default" setting, no paper needed and relatively easy to prove. I don't think living wills cost very much. And there's no reason you can't have a platonic friend be your power of attorney and arbiter of medical decisions. In terms of platonic relationships being used in ways most use romantic relationships with contracts, the asexual community is working that stuff out now, from what I've read. Guess it's a problem they, by definition, need to solve, just like most of your talking appliances are because those of us who can't see needed to use such things and the niche developed.

Anyway, you all got me thinking on that stuff.

And thanks for the kind words, Deidre. I felt guilty as a Xian for not being 'discerning' (code word for judgmental). Not to co-opt other people's situations, but I feel much like how women may have felt when first sexually liberated in the 60s: I'm proud to be nonjudgmental in these types of things, do so with abandond, and am free of the guilt they put on us for being this way. So much progress is born of understanding how others do things.

[Deidre]

Thanks, Leo. You've been very helpful here.

[Deidre]

 

Lol

I'm never getting married so ...that's that I guess.

 

I think that is a praiseworthy decision and it is admirable to not back down when people are pressuring you to go mainstream.  I'm not sure If I've ever known someone who is very active with dating but is completely committed to never getting married.  How non ladylike Hehe

 

The only people I've known with that sentiment are those who are intent on remaining single bachelors or whatever a female equivalent to a bachelor is.

 

Have sex and fun, for as long as you both shall live.

There you go.

 

That's all I want. Fun and sex, with one person until they get on my nerves. And then I'm out. lol

 

Quasi-serious.

[Deidre]

well I do a lot of traveling so if you ever want to have fun just let me know

haha see? if i or you were ''married,'' you wouldn't be able to make such an offer.

and i wouldn't be able to mull it over for consideration.

 

wait...

 

what?

 

 

In all seriousness, I'm no advocating reckless behavior. lol Just playin'.

[Deidre]

me and you hanging out would be reckless behavior?

it was a joke.

 

 

Leo, in rereading your post, I hadn't given much thought to all of that...the particulars of if I'm sick or whatever. Maybe that is smart of think of such things. Even living wills?

[Deidre]

LOL when you sad just playing in your post I thought you were referring to the top of the post not the bottom.

 

 

Anyhow, being single doesn't mean there's no one there to take care of you when you're sick. I'm walking proof of that.

you're right, that's so true. you seem to be doing better, matt. i have always knew you could do it. and see? without religion. hehe

**hugs

[Leo]

It's true being single doesn't mean you have no support. You just have to be intentional about maintaining your support. Just like people who are married have to be intentional about maintaining our marriages.

I know single people who do this all very successfully, have gotten living wills RE: end of life issues, and have a circle of friends they can depend upon. And I know others who are kind of recluses, and now that they're middle aged, wonder what they're going to do, or if they'll simply be found dead days or weeks after the fact by the authorities.

[Deidre]

 

you're right, that's so true. you seem to be doing better, matt. i have always knew you could do it. and see? without religion. hehe

**hugs

 

TY.  Also, the first thing that comes to mind when I look at your avatar is Deconversion

 

Also, I wonder what it was that Natural selection was responsible for that made human beings to be the only animal to have any desire for marriage?

 

Maybe mankind is in denial that we are animals.

Only Creationist mankind are in denial of that fact.

 

I LOVE that "d-conversion."

 

Going to make it my tag line hehe

 

@ Leo, those are good points. I probably should get things in order. We could die at any moment, no warning and probably a good idea to have arrangements made of some sort.

[Leo]

I believe most anthropological opinion says it has to do with us settling down and being agricultural.

As a traveling band, all the children are the responsibility of all the adults, which makes a ton of evolutionary sense. you don't want some to starve if their parents die in an accident, which were frequent during hunting and gathering times.

But with agriculture came the advent of private property, defense, and population increase. That doesn't mean agricultural people were healthier, just that staying in one place and having food stores tended toward fertility. Certainly some agricultural groups like the Native Americans, and the pre-Christian European tribal peoples had more or less loose arrangements, but the marriage we're all familiar with started in Mesopotamia and thereabouts, where agriculture gave way to city states and finally empires.

Of course even then, you didn't have the nuclear family we do today. That is a uniquely Victorian innovation, to meet the needs of the more mobile industrial revolution.

I'm just plain fascinated and curious as to how groups like the polyamorous, which look compatible with pre-agricultural societies, will make a go of it in a post-industrial economy. Apparently according to some statistics, 2.5 million people report to be polyamorous in the U.S. alone. The number of unmarried is significantly higher.

But, marriage has been an issue of resources. And look at this topic: living wills, division of properly, support systems. It's all resource-based when you stop and think about it.

Also the economics of scarcity play a huge part in the equation. The most sexually free societies are those island societies in the south pacific where they have enough fruit and animals on the island to meet their lifestyle. Although there's plenty of sex, the population doesn't explode out of control.

I know I'm not citing sources here, but the curious can take a poke around in anthropology sections of their local library or the Internet.

Frankly, resource-restricted economies give way to behavior that emulates babboons, or to some extent chimpanzees. While resource-rich environments like the island societies, without the strict ownership of property, give way to behaviors that are similar to bonobonos in many ways.

It's all interesting to me.

[Deidre]

I believe most anthropological opinion says it has to do with us settling down and being agricultural.

As a traveling band, all the children are the responsibility of all the adults, which makes a ton of evolutionary sense. you don't want some to starve if their parents die in an accident, which were frequent during hunting and gathering times.

But with agriculture came the advent of private property, defense, and population increase. That doesn't mean agricultural people were healthier, just that staying in one place and having food stores tended toward fertility. Certainly some agricultural groups like the Native Americans, and the pre-Christian European tribal peoples had more or less loose arrangements, but the marriage we're all familiar with started in Mesopotamia and thereabouts, where agriculture gave way to city states and finally empires.

Of course even then, you didn't have the nuclear family we do today. That is a uniquely Victorian innovation, to meet the needs of the more mobile industrial revolution.

I'm just plain fascinated and curious as to how groups like the polyamorous, which look compatible with pre-agricultural societies, will make a go of it in a post-industrial economy. Apparently according to some statistics, 2.5 million people report to be polyamorous in the U.S. alone. The number of unmarried is significantly higher.

But, marriage has been an issue of resources. And look at this topic: living wills, division of properly, support systems. It's all resource-based when you stop and think about it.

Also the economics of scarcity play a huge part in the equation. The most sexually free societies are those island societies in the south pacific where they have enough fruit and animals on the island to meet their lifestyle. Although there's plenty of sex, the population doesn't explode out of control.

I know I'm not citing sources here, but the curious can take a poke around in anthropology sections of their local library or the Internet.

Frankly, resource-restricted economies give way to behavior that emulates babboons, or to some extent chimpanzees. While resource-rich environments like the island societies, without the strict ownership of property, give way to behaviors that are similar to bonobonos in many ways.

It's all interesting to me.

Interestingly, marriage has secular, tribal roots. I will find some links later as to its origin. Mainly, the reason was to keep order in communities, and to not have kids from various families with no central family. Procreation and order were largely the driving factors over love. Nowadays, it seems to be all about the wedding, and not much after thought into the actual endeavor of marriage.

 

Your input has been great Leo!

 

 

 

 

 

BO, be careful. People might just think you have a softer side. That was really nice what you posted there. I guess you're right. But, at the end of the day, maybe it boils down to being the marrying kind, or not being the marrying kind.

Here's something...

So, I'm talking with a friend of mine about marriage and such and her dad's friend who's in his mid 50's...recently got married, for the very first time. She said he didn't have a wedding or anything, just a small ceremony. But, he 'finally' met someone worth marrying, was how she put it.

''Worth marrying.'' lol

 

Like sitting on a bench at school dance waiting for that perfect guy to pick you. Ohhhh...I'm worthy!

 

 

I had the same happen to me last evening believe it or not.  I was chatting with an American friend of mine who used to live here in Russia and who is back for a visit.  He's in his mid 50s and never been married, yet he's here in town to get married this weekend.  Could have knocked me over with a feather.

 

Lol

Maybe one worries about growing old without a partner at that point? I'm not sure. :/

 

You never know, we might all grow old together.

 

That would be odd if a member of the forum passed away.  If no one knew that person personally and they didn't have a relative who knew they belonged to an online community, nobody here would be informed, perhaps.

 

You're right, that's a grim thought, I suppose.

[Deidre]

Listened to a radio program on my way into work and the dj's were joking around about the idea of marriage. But then they got serious, and one of them said, "marriage is just not necessary. If you are staying together out of obligation or kids or it's too costly to divorce, then marriage doesn't mean anything to you anyway."

 

He went onto say that if two people are together with no marriage and they don't want the relationship anymore, then just end it. Can't just walk out of a marriage without any legal consequences.

 

I was happy to hear that I'm not alone, and that not wanting marriage doesn't mean you're selfish or immature. Just means you see it as a paradigm that seems to fail society, more than it helps it. I also hate the phrase "marriage takes work." Lol I have a job, but thanks anyway.

 

Just sharing.

[Leo]

I bet the forums members dying happens more often than we want to think. An extreme example would be this one, where a lot of people are here under different names, and people in their real life don't know. Others would be specialist forums that their family members don't even know they're on, because their interest is different.

Deidre, not to be a downer, but:

The "You can just walk out" argument, usually touted by Christians saying easy come, easy go, is actually a fallacy. If two people who aren't married separate, and they own a house and property together, have joint bank accounts, etc., how does that separate easily? Now, if you're in a relationship like you and margee describe, separate housing, separate bank accounts, nothing joined for convenience, and nothing done as a unit or partnership legally, you would have the easiest time separating.

So, to not be the marrying type, don't do anything legal together. Don't buy a house or a car together, don't have kids together, don't have any joint accounts. That is how I would want to do things if the Wife died or in some other way we were separated, and I was single again. Having joint things is extremely convenient on a lot of levels. But I've seen people have to split up property and all sorts of things, and have argued with Christians against the "you can just walk out" fallacy. That is simply not true, once legally entangled. Family court or other divorce arbitration just makes that easier, if rigged against men in my opinion.  And in my opinion the easiest way to make it an "easy to walk out" situation? Don't share anything legally. Don't buy together, rent together, own a car together, own a business together, have kids together. Then it will be easy to walk away. If you live together, married or not, both names are on the lease. So in my opinion, chip in to break the lease and both of you move.

Of course, who am I to say? Been in the same relationship for 21 years, so. But I've watched as friends of varying means and acquisitions have done this breakup of longterm relationships. The easiest ones had no joint connections at all legally, and either both paid to break lease, or lived separately like you and Margee have mentioned.

[Deidre]

I bet the forums members dying happens more often than we want to think. An extreme example would be this one, where a lot of people are here under different names, and people in their real life don't know. Others would be specialist forums that their family members don't even know they're on, because their interest is different.

Deidre, not to be a downer, but:

The "You can just walk out" argument, usually touted by Christians saying easy come, easy go, is actually a fallacy. If two people who aren't married separate, and they own a house and property together, have joint bank accounts, etc., how does that separate easily? Now, if you're in a relationship like you and margee describe, separate housing, separate bank accounts, nothing joined for convenience, and nothing done as a unit or partnership legally, you would have the easiest time separating.

So, to not be the marrying type, don't do anything legal together. Don't buy a house or a car together, don't have kids together, don't have any joint accounts. That is how I would want to do things if the Wife died or in some other way we were separated, and I was single again. Having joint things is extremely convenient on a lot of levels. But I've seen people have to split up property and all sorts of things, and have argued with Christians against the "you can just walk out" fallacy. That is simply not true, once legally entangled. Family court or other divorce arbitration just makes that easier, if rigged against men in my opinion.  And in my opinion the easiest way to make it an "easy to walk out" situation? Don't share anything legally. Don't buy together, rent together, own a car together, own a business together, have kids together. Then it will be easy to walk away. If you live together, married or not, both names are on the lease. So in my opinion, chip in to break the lease and both of you move.

Of course, who am I to say? Been in the same relationship for 21 years, so. But I've watched as friends of varying means and acquisitions have done this breakup of longterm relationships. The easiest ones had no joint connections at all legally, and either both paid to break lease, or lived separately like you and Margee have mentioned.

I agree to an extent. If I lived with a woman, as roommates...what kind of agreement would we have? I think that two people can live together as a couple, and still maintain separateness in finances. I don't really care all that much about sharing bank accounts, and such. That aspect of marriage doesn't bother me. What becomes cumbersome is in the likely event (see what I did there? lol) that the relationship breaks up, then you have to hire lawyers, and spend time, energy, and money sorting all of your finances and assets out. It's not worth the headache. I suppose that is what pre-nups are about, but I still think things can get sticky in the end.

 

Having children. That would be complicated, but I know people who have had pretty peaceful divorces and custody settlements. So, guess it also depends on the couple.

 

If it's a mutual break up, things probably would go relatively smooth. If one person cheated, and the other goes off on an emotional rampage, that's when things get messy. Have seen my share of those types of divorces, too. At the end of the day, marriage subtly implies to some people that they own the rights to another person. You really don't. They can fuck whoever they wish, and you are free to leave the relationship. I've been cheated on before, and it sucks, but I've never been married, and I just left. I was of course hurt over it, but the fact that I could walk away, without having to wade through a laborious court battle, was really nice.

 

Marriage imposes some false expectations that humans beings really shouldn't have for one another. Stay together because you want to, married or not. Leo, you offer a lot of thought provoking comments, I appreciate them. Makes things interesting to learn of other perspectives.