# Why don't people want to get married any more?



## MZMEE (Apr 17, 2018)

Why do you think more people are opting to just live together instead of getting married? I understand why some may not want to get married so they just date but live separately. But I don't understand why you would live together and not get married. Is it because people are afraid that if things don't work out it is harder to get divorced than just leave? But then when you live together and start buying things together and sharing things and things go bad....take a look at Judge Judy...you have no law to help you. This is the protection that marriage gives you.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## SentHereForAReason (Oct 25, 2017)

A variety of reasons and there was a good thread about this a few months back and the answers were pretty eye opening. In bullet point form, some of the reasons;

- been burned badly in their marriage by spouse (emotionally and financially)
- easy to get sex without being married now
- less of societal pressure to get married, even if you want kids

There's a lot of other (sub)reasons but they stem from the core points above.

If you have read my story, you would think I might be jaded about marriage too but I'm not. The divorce changed me but it didn't change my core beliefs and values. I still believe in marriage. I'm not built for today's FWBs culture. Don't get me wrong, I love sex but having the emotional bond + the attraction is what's for me. I'm in no rush but one day I do see myself again, making a vow to share my life with someone else forever and it's important to me that I do that before God. Just the next time, what has changed in me will help me identify better, the partner, where it will be forever for them as well.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

MZMEE said:


> What are your thoughts?


In my opinion not much has changed, but as a society we are now much more aware of those that never got married. But...

After the housing bubble there has been a huge bubble in the cost of education with some people having a quarter million or more in college loans. The degree may not be of much value as career opportunities are sometimes here today and gone tomorrow as economies sometimes evolve faster than college curriculums can keep up.

Can two people get married that each have a quarter million in student loans to repay?


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

Society has changed where it's no longer a big deal to live together without being married, so more people are doing it. People do it because it is cheaper and easier to cohabitate than have two homes. I don't know how or if this has changed the marriage rate in this country.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

badsanta said:


> MZMEE said:
> 
> 
> > What are your thoughts?
> ...


Why can't they? The debt doesn't change because they get married. Single, married, why does that student loan debt matter? Two can live cheaper than one, so even better, budget wise. Life and love don't have to stop because you have student debt. You can't be married because you have student loans?????


----------



## BigToe (Jun 2, 2011)

It can be rationalized in many ways. My opinion is that marriage is primarily a religious ceremony but also provides tax advantages (in the US). With increased secularism and government now looking at couples as "partners" rather than "spouses", the social need for marriage is waning. I do also believe that at an individual level people feel it will be easier to leave the relationship if they want to, by not having that piece of paper binding them in marriage and creating a feeling of commitment. Nothing easier than walking out saying, "Well, it's not like we were ever married."


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Part of it is that there is no stigma anymore against living together.


----------



## Edo Edo (Feb 21, 2017)

Marriage has always had some level of religious connotation, which many in our society do not agree with or live up to any longer. The other thing I noticed is that more and more often, people have seen marriage as the ultimate end then just stop trying to please each other after walking down the isle (happened to me until I called my wife out on it). However, I've seen when people still date and live together (even after long periods) they still seem to put forth extra effort for each other...

Also, I know that (at least where I live) that the laws are so skewed in favor of the wife, that if a divorce should ever occur, the husband gets totally screwed (child custody, money, alimony, childcare amounts, living space, etc.). I have two young sons now. Depending on how society changes and laws adjust, I may advise them to avoid marriage altogether in favor of an arrangement of living together and keeping assets separate. It just seems a safer way to live life anymore... (at least for the man...)


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Livvie said:


> Why can't they? The debt doesn't change because they get married. Single, married, why does that student loan debt matter? Two can live cheaper than one, so even better, budget wise. Life and love don't have to stop because you have student debt. You can't be married because you have student loans?????


True! But I am talking about a "BUBBLE" of debt. 

If two people each have about 30-100K in student loans, no big deal. But if you have two undergraduate degrees skyrocketing into a combined half a million of debt before you even get married... and a two bedroom apartment costs 1.5 million in your local real estate market... ummmm, that is a lot of pressure and people may just want to stay single, try and stabilize themselves financially, and enjoy friends with benefits and perhaps share costs by becoming roommates.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

MZMEE said:


> Why do you think more people are opting to just live together instead of getting married? I understand why some may not want to get married so they just date but live separately. But I don't understand why you would live together and not get married. Is it because people are afraid that if things don't work out it is harder to get divorced than just leave? But then when you live together and start buying things together and sharing things and things go bad....take a look at Judge Judy...you have no law to help you. This is the protection that marriage gives you.
> 
> What are your thoughts?


I don't think there is a problem with people just dating and living together without getting married, I think some people just don't feel the need for the legal document and they consider themselves to be equally as committed as a couple who has been legally married.

BUT, I do think it is a problem that so many people get married and then stop dating.


----------



## Yeswecan (Jul 25, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> Part of it is that there is no stigma anymore against living together.


For the win!


Our daughters want to marry. Our eldest has moved in with her BF against our wishes and advice. He has stated he wants to marry our daughter. I don't believe it. Nor does my wife. It is a room mate with benefits and checkbook. Nothing more. We have explained this to our daughter. She will not listen.


----------



## Tron (Jan 31, 2013)

It is a combination of factors IMO.

- Living together is far more common and accepted

- Kids without married parents is far more common and accepted

- The last 20 or 30 years I think the courts have given men the shaft in divorce court. Why should men put their savings, their home, their retirement, their future at risk for what by all accounts is a 50/50 proposition

- If women will put out and stick around without a ring, why give them a ring?

- The ranks of SAHMs has decreased and women have their own careers and can support themselves and are more independent

- Overall reduction in the percentage of folks that consider themselves religious 

- Debt

Just a few


----------



## PigglyWiggly (May 1, 2018)

To me, it seems people who live together don't get as lazy in the relationship because they know the other person can leave at any time.


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

Well for me, it would make marriage number four, therefore I really have no interest in making a relationship legal any more. As much as I loved the feeling of belonging and being able to claim my mate as "husband", I clearly have a very broken man picker, and it just has never worked out for me. Makes me sad. But now I just want a life partner, someone who is just as committed to me as I am them, and living together with that commitment would be just fine with me.


----------



## PigglyWiggly (May 1, 2018)

3Xnocharm said:


> Well for me, it would make marriage number four, therefore I really have no interest in making a relationship legal any more. As much as I loved the feeling of belonging and being able to claim my mate as "husband", *I clearly have a very broken man picker, and it just has never worked out for me.* Makes me sad. But now I just want a life partner, someone who is just as committed to me as I am them, and living together with that commitment would be just fine with me.


That's a very honest and refreshing admission. I applaud you for putting that out there :smile2:


----------



## Openminded (Feb 21, 2013)

Because many no longer view marriage as beneficial.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Fortunately, we do not have to substitute our ignorance for data. There are people who are studying this phenomenon - 

As U.S. marriage rate hovers at 50%, education gap in marital status widens | Pew Research Center


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

MZMEE said:


> Why do you think more people are opting to just live together instead of getting married? I understand why some may not want to get married so they just date but live separately. But I don't understand why you would live together and not get married. Is it because people are afraid that if things don't work out it is harder to get divorced than just leave? But then when you live together and start buying things together and sharing things and things go bad....take a look at Judge Judy...you have no law to help you. This is the protection that marriage gives you.
> 
> What are your thoughts?


Benefits are only financial, and only accrue to the lower-earning spouse.


----------



## jlcrome (Nov 5, 2017)

My personal reasons is because I was married before and divorce is never win-win it's win-lose or lose-lose. At my age with CS and paying a mortgage and bills if another marriage don't pan out I may be looking at homelessness or jail time for back CS. So marriage is put off like way down the road but I can deal with a relationship. I just don't see the attraction to living together you can have a meaningful relationship without playing marriage. My 2 cents worth M 48 years old.


----------



## musiclover (Apr 26, 2017)

I was married and just have no desire to be married again. Once was enough.

I am self sufficient. I have a good job, pay my bills and do what I want. 

My ex drained me to the point that when we got divorced I felt like I was free. I may change my mind at some point, but for now I'm so happy being single 🙂


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*Plain and simple ~ they are scared crapless of the divorce process, and all that it entails!*


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

badsanta said:


> In my opinion not much has changed, but as a society we are now much more aware of those that never got married. But...
> 
> After the housing bubble there has been a huge bubble in the cost of education with some people having a quarter million or more in college loans. The degree may not be of much value as career opportunities are sometimes here today and gone tomorrow as economies sometimes evolve faster than college curriculums can keep up.
> 
> Can two people get married that each have a quarter million in student loans to repay?


I'm not sure that all the student debt is a big issue in that it has to be paid whether they are married or not.

Student loans belongs to the person who made the loan. Their spouse is not responsible for the debt.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

BioFury said:


> Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.


This is so insulting to women. Really?

So women are cows and the only reason to marry a woman is if it's the only way she will have sex with you?

Don't forget that it's also women choosing to live together and not get married. 

So it's not just men making the chose to not marry because they don't respect women who will have sex with them outside of marriage.

Maybe it's that some women have figured out that marriage is not good for them at that time. They do have a say in this.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

EleGirl said:


> BioFury said:
> 
> 
> > Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.
> ...


My mom always used to say "consider the source."


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

EleGirl said:


> This is so insulting to women. Really?
> 
> So women are cows and the only reason to marry a woman is if it's the only way she will have sex with you?
> 
> ...


I wasn't expressing my own thoughts, merely the ideology of those who see no purpose in marrying. But even so, the comment is not directed at women, or men, exclusively. It just relates the fact that people see no reason to make sacrifices for something, when you can attain it just the same at no cost.

But your statement "women are cows" made me laugh. Sorry >



personofinterest said:


> My mom always used to say "consider the source."


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Laziness and lack of commitment. Its easier to live together and opt out when things get a bit tough. Living together wasn't accepted not so long ago, but now that it is, most people do it. However a large number of them will get married eventually if their relationship lasts. 
Personally I wouldn't live with a man unless he was prepared to get married first. 

We were both married before, 23 and 25 years, but for those who say that their divorce put them off marrying again, why? It didn't put us off at all, despite what we went though.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

3Xnocharm said:


> Well for me, it would make marriage number four, therefore I really have no interest in making a relationship legal any more. As much as I loved the feeling of belonging and being able to claim my mate as "husband", I clearly have a very broken man picker, and it just has never worked out for me. Makes me sad. But now I just want a life partner, someone who is just as committed to me as I am them, and living together with that commitment would be just fine with me.


How would living with someone make it more likely to last and be more committed than being married?


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> How would living with someone make it more likely to last and be more committed than being married?




I'm not saying it would. But it wouldn't be another damn divorce for me. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Handy (Jul 23, 2017)

* Diana
but for those who say that their divorce put them off marrying again, why?*

Because the divorce included so much anger and resentments in the end. In the previous M, everything started out roses and sunshine maybe like the new live together relationship has started out. People remember how the good turned bad and all the trouble involved to get to the end of the M and divorce. They simply do not want to repeat that long drawn out bad part of their previous failed relationship. It isn't all that different for a person that does not want to have payments for a new car, just don't set foot in a new car dealership or look at new cars on the Internet. New car payments avoided.

Not having a good picker is sometimes part of the problem but I think don't know how to navigate through problems that come their way so some of the small stuff builds into bigger problems. Living together might make breaking up quicker and less painful, plus the lawyers don't get tens of thousands of $$$$ in most cases.


----------



## ElCanario (Nov 11, 2013)

Edo Edo said:


> Marriage has always had some level of religious connotation, which many in our society do not agree with or live up to any longer. The other thing I noticed is that more and more often, people have seen marriage as the ultimate end then just stop trying to please each other after walking down the isle (happened to me until I called my wife out on it). However, I've seen when people still date and live together (even after long periods) they still seem to put forth extra effort for each other...
> 
> Also, I know that (at least where I live) that the laws are so skewed in favor of the wife, that if a divorce should ever occur, the husband gets totally screwed (child custody, money, alimony, childcare amounts, living space, etc.). I have two young sons now. Depending on how society changes and laws adjust, I may advise them to avoid marriage altogether in favor of an arrangement of living together and keeping assets separate. It just seems a safer way to live life anymore... (at least for the man...)


Yes, it's gotten to the point where I've told my young adult sons not to even consider marriage, because if they marry and have kids and later have problems in their marriage, they will be stuck in a miserable, impossible situation because divorce is so skewed against them. Especially if they have kids. Better to just stay a bachelor forever.


----------



## Mr.Married (Feb 21, 2018)

Why don't people want to get married any more?

Because it is statically against the odds. Due to this the majority have been raised in homes with broken relationships. It breeds caution with good reason.

I would be curious to see the statistics of the kids from successful marriage homes VS. broken marriage homes. I think the results would be very telling.


----------



## ABHale (Jan 3, 2016)

Why should a guy get married when he gets the milk for free and can walk away any time he wants. 

Also vice versa.


----------



## Vinnydee (Jan 4, 2016)

Real easy. If you were aware that the airplane you are about to board has a better than 50% chance of crashing, would you board it? Same odds for marriage.

What is happening is that people are living together and having kids before they get married. It is sort of a practice marriage. Today people are marrying not knowing if they are sexually compatible or can live well together. They will grow and change during their first years of marriage and that change may not be for the best. Doing all this before marriage allows you to learn if you can better the odds of staying married.


----------



## peacem (Oct 25, 2014)

I was having the exact conversation with friends. We think its because it is first so expensive and competitive (remember the stories from older family members when they had the reception in their front room with a hand-me-down dress). The cost of housing is more of a priority to younger people. Secondly, we live in a secular society so its not socially required anymore. Thirdly, most young people have divorced parents and can probably remember the trauma of 'divorce'. I have a friend who is a family lawyer and he stubbornly refused to ever get married because of the things he has witnessed. Fourthly, people are putting off having children until later in life - so there is no pressure there, but when children do come along they realise they have perfectly functional lives without the need for a bit of paper to legitimize things.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Some people are still getting married. In recent years my daughter from my first marriage got married, as did one of my nephews and one of my nieces. Plus one of my first cousins in England also got married for his second time as well.


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

ABHale said:


> Why should a guy get married when he gets the milk for free and can walk away any time he wants.
> 
> Also vice versa.


If, by "milk", you mean sex, then if all a guy cares about with a woman is sex, then he shouldn't even begin thinking about the word "marriage" anyway, so it's just as well.


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

Mr.Married said:


> Why don't people want to get married any more?
> 
> Because it is statically against the odds. Due to this the majority have been raised in homes with broken relationships. It breeds caution with good reason.
> 
> I would be curious to see the statistics of the kids from successful marriage homes VS. broken marriage homes. I think the results would be very telling.


I don't fully get this.

In the USA, when you get a job, the statistics are 90% that you will lose it before you retire. Yet people still get jobs!


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

ElCanario said:


> Yes, it's gotten to the point where I've told my young adult sons not to even consider marriage, because if they marry and have kids and later have problems in their marriage, they will be stuck in a miserable, impossible situation because divorce is so skewed against them. Especially if they have kids. Better to just stay a bachelor forever.


A lot of the grief in divorce can be avoided if:

1) No kids
2) Both people earn the same amount.

I would get married again if the SO agreed to the above. Well, the no kids part has been made surgically enforced anyway....


----------



## Luminous (Jan 14, 2018)

DustyDog said:


> I don't fully get this.
> 
> In the USA, when you get a job, the statistics are 90% that you will lose it before you retire. Yet people still get jobs!


Most people NEED a job to sustain themselves and any sort of quality of life. 

One does not need a marriage to have a good life.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

ElCanario said:


> Yes, it's gotten to the point where I've told my young adult sons not to even consider marriage, because if they marry and have kids and later have problems in their marriage, they will be stuck in a miserable, impossible situation because divorce is so skewed against them. Especially if they have kids. Better to just stay a bachelor forever.


How sad, we have sons in very happy marriages.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Luminous said:


> Most people NEED a job to sustain themselves and any sort of quality of life.
> 
> One does not need a marriage to have a good life.


That's your opinion. Its been shown that men are healthier and live longer if they are married.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> That's your opinion. Its been shown that men are healthier and live longer if they are married.


Maybe it just seems longer.🤔


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> Maybe it just seems longer.🤔


I am fortunate to know many marriages that are very happy. Including mine.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> Andy1001 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it just seems longer.🤔
> ...


I’m just kidding @Diana7 I’m getting married myself in October.


----------



## Luminous (Jan 14, 2018)

Diana7 said:


> That's your opinion. Its been shown that men are healthier and live longer if they are married.


Longer does not automatically = better


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> I’m just kidding @Diana7 I’m getting married myself in October.


Its the best thing:smile2: If we had let our bad experiences of divorce stop us from marrying again, we would have missed out on the good strong happy marriage of 13 years we have now. 
Best wishes for you both.


----------



## Robbie1234 (Feb 8, 2017)

Andy1001 said:


> I’m just kidding @Diana7 I’m getting married myself in October.


Will you go through with [email protected] ?


----------



## Tron (Jan 31, 2013)

Andy1001 said:


> I’m just kidding @Diana7 I’m getting married myself in October.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

I see people still prefer their own educated "guess" to actual research. 

Those with a college degree are still marrying at almost the same rate as 30 years ago, so lack of education seems to correlate with lack of marriage.

60% of people who have never married still desire to do so: 

Most never married adults are just waiting for the right person.

Financial instability among low earners is a primary impediment.


----------



## PreRaph (Jun 13, 2017)

I don't have statistics, but I'll bet that if you added the number of couples married and those who are living together, the number probably compares pretty favorably to number of marriages in the past.

More people are probably afraid of marriage than in the past. You can lose so much in a bad divorce, particularly your financial independence plus ending up alone.


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

Livvie said:


> Why can't they? The debt doesn't change because they get married. Single, married, why does that student loan debt matter? Two can live cheaper than one, so even better, budget wise. Life and love don't have to stop because you have student debt. You can't be married because you have student loans?????


In my experience, women with high debt don't want to marry a man with high debt - she wants help getting it paid off. And, the reverse...a guy with high debt doesn't want to make his situation worse.

And...increasingly...nobody wants to be a sugar daddy or sugar momma.


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

Luminous said:


> Most people NEED a job to sustain themselves and any sort of quality of life.
> 
> One does not need a marriage to have a good life.


Exactly my point - so then, why is it such a fear-inducing thing that this marriage, which you don't need anyway, might not be permanent?


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> That's your opinion. Its been shown that men are healthier and live longer if they are married.


The problem with statistics is that it's damned hard to collect them accurately.

This quote is based on a singular study in 1996 which measured happiness and health levels of men who got married, and stayed married until death. The same study did not study women. Would it have drawn the same conclusion had it studied women? Who knows. The fact that the study was done in an intentionally biased manner makes it not very worthy.

(BTW, my source material is a series of articles published in the print edition of Psychology Today over the past 2 years)

How about this? At death, determine if a person is married or not, and then make a claim. All other things being equal, if more of the men are married at death than women, then we've proven the point, right?

Still nope. Societal pressures drive men to having higher risk careers, and they experience higher constant stress than women, therfore men don't live as long, period. So, if a couple is married until death, the man dies first, counting as a "married man" at death, and the widow dies after him, counting as a "single woman".

The team of authors of this series in Psychology Today concluded that no properly-done study of marriage, happiness and longevity has actually ever been done. They pointed to a series of studies being done now via the Greater Good Science Center (GGSC), mostly sponsored by UCal Berkely, which is attempting, for the first time, to be gender-neutral. So far, the evidence suggests that the stress of a bad marriage hurts men more than women, because men, in general, experience more stress - and this is getting worse over the decades. However, the stress of a bad marriage hurts women too. This is measured in happiness and longevity. A good marriage produces measurable improvements in happiness and health in both genders, but they haven't identified whether it helps one gender more than the other. Having children has a HUGE boost in health and happiness for women, as long as they're not working, and a moderate one in men...at first...but ten years later, if the man is still the main breadwinner, the stress on him has started to diminish his health, even if the marriage is otherwise happy.

So, it's not simple. It's not possible, at this time, to claim that "men are helped by marriage more than women"...nor the opposite. 

All that can be claimed is that marriage, without children, if it's working well, helps both. Marriage that's not working hurts both. Adding children complicates everything.

GGSC also studied Long-Term couples who are not married, and found overall levels of stress in both genders were somewhat lower than in married couples. With or without children. I suspect that's not something people think about, but it fits a model - the more expectations are placed upon a person, the higher their stress level...marriage sets higher expectations.


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> I am fortunate to know many marriages that are very happy. Including mine.


I know many such happy marriages.

I also know many multiple-decade live-together couples, with and without kids, that are happy.

I don't think the institution of marriage, itself, is either a creator or destroyer of happiness. It's just a thing, with no more power than whatever the participants imbue it with.


----------



## musicftw07 (Jun 23, 2016)

DustyDog said:


> Exactly my point - so then, why is it such a fear-inducing thing that this marriage, which you don't need anyway, might not be permanent?


Risk vs reward.

The rewards can be great in marriage, but the risks can also be enormously high. A significant portion of income, assets, time with children, and retirement can be lost due to the whims of someone else.

I view marriage like a business contract, which is in the eyes of the state it most certainly is. I would never enter into a contract without agreeing to the terms beforehand, yet that is done with marriage every day. It seems irresponsible to me. I'm very open to marrying my girlfriend (it would be my second marriage), but not without a pre-nup thoroughly vetted by a lawyer.

I'm not anti-marriage, but I am very pro-caution when it comes to marriage. I don't judge anyone who decides it either is or isn't worth the risk.

Personal choice. It's their life, they can make whatever decision they feel is right for them. But if one chooses to enter into a marriage I would always advocate prudence and due diligence. It would be no different when buying a house, remodeling a house, buying a car, or starting a business with someone.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Just to pipe in... 

Personally, I'd love to be married again. And I lost half a million plus (and the ex gained) less than a year ago when our house sold.

The problem for me is that a relationship would have to work really, really well for both of us, and at this moment in time, I simply don't see that happening.

What DD said about debt is true for me. I have no debt. Haven't for about two decades now, and I'd be hard pressed to even seriously date a man whose was carrying around a lot of debt with no plan to get it paid off. Owing money is a real stressor for me. 

Also, what money I have, I'm looking forward to leaving to my children, so I don't know how that would be sorted out in the event that I were to meet a unicorn.


----------



## MZMEE (Apr 17, 2018)

Great dialog! Great opinions! Thanks everyone.

Two things stand out in the many conversations I have had around this subject.

1. People don't want the legal drama of divorce. It's easier to just walk away if things go south.
My opinion: though this may be true in some cases. It also is not true if you start merging assets because divorce uses the legal system to attempt for a fair distribution. You have no protection without a legal marriage. The division is solely up to contracts and the heart of the courts. I watch enough Judge Judy to see case after case of non-married couples taking the other partner to court because when they lived together and started acquiring assets, people want to take or pay for things during the divide and there is no legal protection. Now on the other hand...any break up whether by divorce or not can be very ugly so even if you were legally married, if two people can't come to a cordial agreement about dividing assets it still ends up being unfair to one of the parties.

2. People don't really care about "the piece of paper". It holds no weight on how they feel about the person so they don't go through with marriage.
My opinion: As a Christian I hold different views that many non-religious people hold (and that's fine...just my beliefs) I do believe there is a spiritual covenant with marriage because it is God's law. Not just God's law but the government separates the married from the unmarried with certain benefits. If you just live together there are certain things you can't get unless you are married. Why just live together and not receive the full benefits of marriage? So I believe it's more than just a piece of paper. No that paper doesn't change how you feel about the person and your love towards one another, but legally it does matter.

3. Easier to live together and share expenses than just date and have to travel between two places.
My opinion: I guess I come from the mindset of "I don't plan to be anybody's cow and give away my milk. You gotta buy this cow.". LOL LOL LOL. I wouldn't want to live like husband and wife and my partner gets all the benefits of a spouse and yet he can just walk away and leave me hanging if he wants. (and vise versa of course). I think it is so dangerous to entangle a whole life and no marriage. Just my opinion of course.

_____

So in conclusion...ultimately it is everybody's free-will to conduct their lives the way they choose. I'm really not judging because I have been in both positions. In my younger days I have lived together for short periods. I've also been married and I've also been divorced. I've experienced the affects of all of the above. Do what works for you and your partner. Any type of breakup is devastating. 

I posed this question because these days I have noticed more and more people living together LIKE they are married. Less and less talk about getting married. Someone here mentioned because the stigma of living together is no longer as strong as it was in the past so people feel free to do it. I think that is the ultimate reason we so it more often.

thanks again for participating in this little poll


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

So does the cohabitation partner still get half? Or does it depend on the state. Otherwise not sure the tax break makes up for the costs that go into a wedding. I think many divorced people aren't interested in it anymore. Cohabitation is less of a commitment, even if it means about the same financially should they split.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

3Xnocharm said:


> Well for me, it would make marriage number four, therefore I really have no interest in making a relationship legal any more. As much as I loved the feeling of belonging and being able to claim my mate as "husband", I clearly have a very broken man picker, and it just has never worked out for me. Makes me sad. But now I just want a life partner, someone who is just as committed to me as I am them, and living together with that commitment would be just fine with me.


Give yourself a break. Two of those marriages were to the same guy - you just didn't learn the first time around with him.


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

I never remarried the same man. Might as well have been for as crappy as I chose. Once I'm done, I'm done. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

musicftw07 said:


> Risk vs reward.
> 
> The rewards can be great in marriage, but the risks can also be enormously high. A significant portion of income, assets, time with children, and retirement can be lost due to the whims of someone else.


Help me understand why "marriage" is the risk. I think choosing to live together with someone in the same household, sharing household chores, sharing household expenses and even having children together, creates all of the same risks, no?

I had an LTR from age 25 to about 33. I left her because of financial risk...her propensity to spend out of our "house" account on things I would not have spent on - even after we agreed she would stop doing so - was the last straw. It wasn't the only issue, her uncontrolled anger was getting worse and I wasn't going to wait for her to grow up.



musicftw07 said:


> I view marriage like a business contract, which is in the eyes of the state it most certainly is. I would never enter into a contract without agreeing to the terms beforehand, yet that is done with marriage every day.


Any activity in which you engage, publicly, creates a sort of contract - a social expectation, a social construct. Courts pay attention to these. People who've lived together for a time then split up, have often been treated by the courts as if they had a contract. Decades ago I was able to enforce a verbal clause in a rental agreement. It didn't even go to court, a judge simply wrote a decree the the landlord had to change her behavior. Marriage, as a contract, doesn't really have much in it in the way of behavioral stipulations, so I'm not sure I see a distinction between living together as if married and having the actual marriage contract.



musicftw07 said:


> It seems irresponsible to me.


To enter into a contract that doesn't have every single term spelled out? Sorry, but very few contracts do. I'm reasonably well versed in contract law. What we are taught in law school is that a contracts, by their very nature, are written to cover future events. Since it's not possible to predict the future, the best a contract can do is set out approximate expectations. Except for rental agreements, they rarely have termination clauses and courts almost always step in.

Contracts are understood by the legal system to be approximations. In a contract dispute, such as divorce, a court will take note of "observable behavior" over a period of time and deduce that since this condition existed a long time without either party legally complaining, then this is the situation the court will try to enact for the future - hence the concept of splitting the money so that both people can move forward with the least reduction in lifestyle "to which they had become accustomed".

More pages in a contract only make it a more expensive legal battle to end it.



musicftw07 said:


> I'm very open to marrying my girlfriend (it would be my second marriage), but not without a pre-nup thoroughly vetted by a lawyer.


Be careful. Pre-nups can and routinely are tossed aside...there are several family courts here in Oregon who state, when you ask that they consider pre-nups to be hostile actions and therefore they won't include them in considerations. A pre-nup is a separate contract from the state's legal marriage license and a court can very easily say "There are two contracts to consider. We have chosen to exert jurisdiction over the marital contract and not the pre-nup contract."



musicftw07 said:


> I'm not anti-marriage, but I am very pro-caution when it comes to marriage. I don't judge anyone who decides it either is or isn't worth the risk.
> 
> Personal choice. It's their life, they can make whatever decision they feel is right for them. But if one chooses to enter into a marriage I would always advocate prudence and due diligence. It would be no different when buying a house, remodeling a house, buying a car, or starting a business with someone.


It is very different when buying a house - that's pure materialism, and you're usually buying a house from someone who's built many before. You're probably not choosing your next wife based on her having experience with many dozens of husbands, are you?

I haven't decided quite how, but my plan for the future may or may not include marriage, but only if I can determine a method by which I can make my assets non-attachable. There are several methods, for instance, of incorporating a company that do this. For instance, if you had $10 million in assets (not a problem I have), there's a way of transferring that $10 million into the company. In many states, income earned on investments are not taxed, so your $10 million could be invested, earn money, and no tax ramifications. If the board of directors is more than me, then a future ex-wife could not end up controlling the company, she could only end up owning my stock and even then, if the company existed before marriage, there are limitations. And, of course, if you don't own any stock in the company, then there's nothing for her to get whatsoever - it's just an employer.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

For me the ideal notion of marriage was shattered when my x cheated and left me. The only thing to be gained by marriage now is risk. Risk of losing so much of what I have had to rebuild over the last 10 years. I enjoy dating and live with my gf although we keep all accounts and financials separate. 

For me it really just comes down to risk vs rewards and as a single father, house owner, vehicle owner, pension holder the risks far outweigh the rewards.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

3Xnocharm said:


> I never remarried the same man. Might as well have been for as crappy as I chose. Once I'm done, I'm done.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My mistake. Apologies.


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

No biggie Blondi!


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

The biggest reason is that it is no longer a societal necessity. In days when two parents were needed to provide for the children, marriage was needed. But now in western society especially when we are so far removed from that, marriage is no longer required for society and/or civilization to continue. Women can have children AND support them well due to the advances they have made in the recent past. So there are some women who decide to forego the whole marriage things and just go it alone. Then there are a significant number of men, who have been victimized by outdated support and custody laws who decide never again.


----------



## wilson (Nov 5, 2012)

A life-long marriage is a marathon task like climbing Mt. Everest, but most people only want to put in as much effort as an easy day hike. It's probably for the best that most people aren't getting married now. Too many people are just looking for an accessory to their life rather than an actual life partner to grow with.

And like others have said, it's no longer as necessary to have a spouse. In the past, it would have been scandalous to have a child out of marriage. An unmarried person, women especially, would be looked down upon if they weren't married after a certain point. Women no longer need marriage for economic security and stability. In the past, many people got married and stayed married because it was almost a requirement as part of society. Unless you didn't mind being an outcast, you were married. Now without all that negative pressure, people only need to stay married if they want to be married. If they haven't met the right person, they might as well stay single. If marriage isn't working out, they might as well get divorced.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

DustyDog said:


> Any activity in which you engage, publicly, creates a sort of contract - a social expectation, a social construct. Courts pay attention to these. People who've lived together for a time then split up, have often been treated by the courts as if they had a contract. Decades ago I was able to enforce a verbal clause in a rental agreement. It didn't even go to court, a judge simply wrote a decree the the landlord had to change her behavior. Marriage, as a contract, doesn't really have much in it in the way of behavioral stipulations, so I'm not sure I see a distinction between living together as if married and having the actual marriage contract./QUOTE]
> 
> Indeed. However, there are some ways to limit the implied contract that living together may create, at least sometimes. For example, for many years my wife and I lived together before we married. We had a notarized "nonmarital cohabitation agreement" which provided us both with protections and benefits, and it was validated when she had to file for disability. She would have gotten far less assistance if we'd been considered a household instead of roommates.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Married but Happy said:


> DustyDog said:
> 
> 
> > Any activity in which you engage, publicly, creates a sort of contract - a social expectation, a social construct. Courts pay attention to these. People who've lived together for a time then split up, have often been treated by the courts as if they had a contract. Decades ago I was able to enforce a verbal clause in a rental agreement. It didn't even go to court, a judge simply wrote a decree the the landlord had to change her behavior. Marriage, as a contract, doesn't really have much in it in the way of behavioral stipulations, so I'm not sure I see a distinction between living together as if married and having the actual marriage contract./QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

Wolf1974 said:


> It does very by state and you definitely have to know the laws. In Colorado you have to hold yourself out to the community as married, share acccounts, and so on to be considered common law married. I never refer to my GF as my wife even jokeingly and you won’t find a single friend of either of us that says we are married, they know our stance on that. We also share no accounts. I have my bills she has hers. No joint checking or savings accounts so I have made sure not to breach any of those things. In other states my understanding is just living together itself constitutes common law.



True, but inadequate. Last I looked, "Common Law" was defined as you say it - in 39 states, and the courts in the remaining 11 states treat divorce as if common law were treated the same way.

However, courts recognize these social connections even in the absence of common-law marriage. The Federal Government recognized, a long time ago, that many people choose to cohabitate without being married and all laws are evolving to a point where long-term partners, with or without marriage, common law or traditional, receive the same benefits, and are subject to the same liabilities, as married couples. For instance, I live with my GF right now, and she pointed out that I am eligible as a "family member" on her insurance. All she needs to do is demonstrate that I shared her address for 12 months. This was codified into law by the ACA. The IRS' tax forms allow two non-married adults to file taxes together indicating that they share financial responsibility. I have a few friends who ended up in court, having never presented as married, having been together only three years. What qualified them for court scrutiny? They lived at the same address, clearly in a home whose bedroom count meant they slept together, they were seen in public doing things like grocery shopping, furniture shopping, going on vacation together - e.g. they were clearly a pair of aduilts whose lives had merged, even if temporary. As time goes on, it will take less and less of this for a court to believe it's proper to get involved when the two people choose to no longer be linked.

The ONLY way, currently, to avoid this completely is to maintain two separate addresses, and to only get together for intermittent purposes, and to be seen, most of the time, in public by yourself.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

DustyDog said:


> True, but inadequate. Last I looked, "Common Law" was defined as you say it - in 39 states, and the courts in the remaining 11 states treat divorce as if common law were treated the same way.
> 
> However, courts recognize these social connections even in the absence of common-law marriage. The Federal Government recognized, a long time ago, that many people choose to cohabitate without being married and all laws are evolving to a point where long-term partners, with or without marriage, common law or traditional, receive the same benefits, and are subject to the same liabilities, as married couples. For instance, I live with my GF right now, and she pointed out that I am eligible as a "family member" on her insurance. All she needs to do is demonstrate that I shared her address for 12 months. This was codified into law by the ACA. The IRS' tax forms allow two non-married adults to file taxes together indicating that they share financial responsibility. I have a few friends who ended up in court, having never presented as married, having been together only three years. What qualified them for court scrutiny? They lived at the same address, clearly in a home whose bedroom count meant they slept together, they were seen in public doing things like grocery shopping, furniture shopping, going on vacation together - e.g. they were clearly a pair of aduilts whose lives had merged, even if temporary. As time goes on, it will take less and less of this for a court to believe it's proper to get involved when the two people choose to no longer be linked.
> 
> The ONLY way, currently, to avoid this completely is to maintain two separate addresses, and to only get together for intermittent purposes, and to be seen, most of the time, in public by yourself.


Well just don’t agree. Here yes you may be able to put someone on your insurance or tax code by specifically not doing show further demonstrates we are a couple but purposely not married. This further strengthens the case.....Again differences in jurisdiction. That said you should always understand the risk of cohabitaing and live only according to your risk vs reward level. 

Some years ago someone posted a thread here about a couple who were engaged for a year but lived separately. When they broke up the female party sued and won not for what was no longer had but for the lifestyle she agreed to when she said I do. It was bs but she won. Iwill see if I can find it but honestly America right. Home of the million dollar lawsuit because McDonald’s served hot coffee. :surprise:


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Does anyone else think this is backward as hell? What is the purpose of a ceremony performed by a religious leader or a justice of the peace? They are mere formalities. 

I truly don't understand how this can happen? I don't understand why it should happen? I hope someone explains it further. For me, it's ridiculous. It's like taxing love and companionship. Maybe taxing is the wrong word. I don't know. Those last two posts really freaked me out.


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

2ntnuf said:


> Does anyone else think this is backward as hell? What is the purpose of a ceremony performed by a religious leader or a justice of the peace? They are mere formalities.
> 
> I truly don't understand how this can happen? I don't understand why it should happen? I hope someone explains it further. For me, it's ridiculous. It's like taxing love and companionship. Maybe taxing is the wrong word. I don't know. Those last two posts really freaked me out.


Of course, it's just nutty as hell

There is NOTHING in the old texts that talks about marriage as a financial institution. It is, instead, spoken of as "a man and woman shall be as one", a unification of the souls. It is spoken of as a bonding together irrespective of differences that come up.

But, as a court judge told me "courts and the law are restricted in matters of emotion. All we can do is deal in matters of money. It is a travesty to reduce a marriage to a dollar amount, but that is the only thing the law is allowed to do".

How could it be resolved? One way is this: when you decide you're no longer married, you just walk away. He gets his accounts, she gets hers, and whoever gets the kids has to raise them. But that would not be fair in most people's eyes, so the whole argument and legal case about money ensues.

Of course it's backward. And as long as people continue to behave as if money is more important than love, the spirit and the soul, it will continue to be backward.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

DustyDog said:


> Of course, it's just nutty as hell
> 
> There is NOTHING in the old texts that talks about marriage as a financial institution. It is, instead, spoken of as "a man and woman shall be as one", a unification of the souls. It is spoken of as a bonding together irrespective of differences that come up.
> 
> ...


I'm still freaked out. I understand the situation when children are involved. They cost an enormous amount of money. The burden must be shared by the responsible parents. 

I wonder when they will change the laws, so that when a custodial parent marries, that burden becomes 1/3rd theirs as regulated by the courts?

Anyway, my thoughts were that living together is not a good idea when considering the legal ramifications. Marriage isn't a good idea, either. When two want children, I'm not sure what is the best manner? Maybe the best is to have them, obtain child support and custodial parenthood, and then live your life while the other parent watches the children? Still, the major burden is on the custodial parent. 

It's so complicated, it makes me want to throw my hands in the air and give up on the idea of "normalcy", since it would be more advantageous to be the custodial parent, and then move in with someone. Weird, but I think that would allow for more income and a better lifestyle than marrying and staying together.

My head is still spinning. bleh


----------



## Luminous (Jan 14, 2018)

DustyDog said:


> Of course, it's just nutty as hell
> 
> There is NOTHING in the old texts that talks about marriage as a financial institution. It is, instead, spoken of as "a man and woman shall be as one", a unification of the souls. It is spoken of as a bonding together irrespective of differences that come up.
> 
> ...


Whilst you make some valid points, my take on the financial side of it is to do purely with survival. 

We no longer need to 'hunt and gather' the old fashioned way, so money is the tool by which we use to survive in our culture.


----------



## Jeffyboy (Apr 7, 2015)

I think you have to ask what's the purpose of getting married? All the reasons I think single people can get easily now, hence the decline in marriage.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Jeffyboy said:


> I think you have to ask what's the purpose of getting married? All the reasons I think single people can get easily now, hence the decline in marriage.[/QUOTE
> 
> Except for total commitment and the willingness to stand before friends and family and make those vows and commitments.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Query: Why don't people want to get married any more?

Response: You haven't been 'round here very long, have you?

Really. Just pick a few threads, completely at random, and you'll never have to ask that question again.


----------

