But if that piece of paper is so insignificant, why won't he sign it? Shouldn't it go both ways? Why should *she* have to sacrifice something she really wants if he has that level of committment for her? What's the big deal with getting married if it's something that will make her happy, and he truely is committed no matter what? *That* is what I don't get...if it's no different to them, then why not just go for it so that everyone is happy - he gets to keep the relationship, she gets the piece of paper, no big deal.

If the piece of paper truely didn't matter to him, then he wouldn't have a problem signing it. Since he does have a problem with it, that tells me that the committment *to her happiness* isn't completely there, because he refuses to give her something that he *claims* is meaningless to him, but would mean a lot to her. And with a start like that, I'm not sure that relationship is the healthiest place for any woman to be - sometimes it's healthier to be alone.

If your logic follows, then why would anyone sign a prenuptial agreement, if they're so sure things are going to work out just fine if they're married? The reason is because IT DOES NOT WORK OUT HALF OF THE TIME regardless of how well-intentioned parties are going into it. Maybe the person who doesn't want to sign on the dotted line is a lot more realistic, thinking if it works out then we are fine, if not, then it's far less tangled and expensive than if we are married.

Most people who get married/decide to live together in their 40s and up have assets that they want to protect in case. So a prenup or agreement of cohabitation is a very good idea. However this flies in the face of the romantic notion that you go into a marraige planning for it to be forever. No, I think you go into it hoping it will be forever and working toward that, but not being blind to the fact that it's often not, and protect yourself accordingly.

Yep, I agree, which is why no pre-nups for me (and I do have a few large assets myself that will become "community property", just like my fiance has a good deal of monetary assets that will become half mine as well). It's all about different perspectives, really - I'd never sign or require a pre-nup, because I refuse to start with the idea we can "get out" without a lot of pain if we want. Some people would rather be more protective about it - thier choice. I'm not terribly young, and my fiance will be 40 before we get married, so we're not up there too far, but we're not completely without past experiences either.

Marriage should be hard to get out of, IMO...there should be serious consequences for going back on a lifelong commitment made in good faith - for both parties, since divorice is rarely the fault of just one person.

Obviously, we have two ways of looking at things - optimistic, or pessimistic (half-full or half-empty). I choose to be optimistic, obviously, choosing to believe that my marriage will be in the 50% that *don't* fail. I expect a higher level of committment and willingness to make me happy from an older man than a younger one, simply because an older man should have enough experience to know what he wants, and how to compromise for the sake of my happiness (or the health of the relationship). Having known my fiance for much longer than we've been dating, I've seen him grow from a young man with no idea what he wanted (and certainly no desire to commit to anything long-term), to a mature middle aged man who is ready to settle down, and commit to a lifetime relationship with me. Obviously not all men are like that, but that's what I know - one would hope that at age 50, a guy would be willing to commit what's left of his life (whether that be 25 yrs or another 50) to a gal without putting up too much of a fight if it meant that much to her.

It's been an interesting discussion, but we're going 'round in circles (it's obvious we're both very set in our opinions), so I'll bow out now. I do hope you've enjoyed the discussion as well, and I wish you and the original poster the best of luck in whatever you decide to do. :-)

"Obviously, we have two ways of looking at things - optimistic, or pessimistic (half-full or half-empty)"

Actually that's not true. I'm optimistic too, but I'm also a realist.

Good luck to you.

Hey, I'm going to throw this into the mix. Perhaps marriage has a spiritual aspect. Perhaps there is some benefit of having a "soul mate" and I'm not using that term in a romantic sense. A partner in life's spiritual journey. Now I know not many marriages are based on that, but I think that is one big difference between being married and "living together." If all you do is "live together" in a marriage then it is a largely purposeless formality. I've never been married, but I do have long term friendships, and a job that consumes me. In both cases, I have seen some spiritual positive aspects in sticking it out through thick and thin. It's spritual discipline, to commit to something because it represents a goal that you value. I think the reason so many marriages fail in today's society is because we have very little in the way of spiritual lives, and I'm not talking rote religion here. Most of what we concern ourselves with is of a material nature. We treat everything like an object--nature, our friends and family, ourselves. Marriage is soul work I think. At least if you want to try and be happy for a long time. Maybe what Terri is sensing is a lack of spirituality in her life overall, and I don't think marriage or no marriage is gonna solve that one, it's a systemic problem. But I still think being a good wife and being a good husband is an honorable avocation, and I don't think it is the same thing as being a tolerable housemate. And I think the contract part, and the ceremony part of marriage are all wrapped up in making it a sacred occupation of your time. Ceremony sanctifies the material and makes it profound. Modern society does just the opposite, takes the sacred and makes it profane. And the idea of "living together" is one example. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is anything wrong with living together, and there is every reason to be skeptical that marriage, even one with all the ceremony in the world, will be a spiritual union, but that's the IDEA behind marriage. Ceremonies can help remind us of our higher goals. Sure we will fall short of them, but I am sick and tired of being told I'm some type of weirdo for thinking it is vital to have ideals. We're all accepting this spiritual numbing because we think the alternative is too scary to contemplate. And I'm not some type of religious fanatic either, I don't think you have to be religious, and we all settle and do what we have to do. But in answer to the question "Why marry?" my response would be "to join in holy union with your soul mate." :-)

Something most people I don't think get is that today's romantic notion of marrying for love is a pretty recent thing. Historically, marriage was for all intents and purposes, for most people, basically a business partnership. Two people got together and agreed to perform certain roles in the business of earning a living, keeping the home, and raising a family. Marriage for love was rare, although certainly after sharing a life for a number of years, plenty of people "grew" to love each other. Most people (especially, but not exclusively, women) didn't even get much of a choice in who to marry. The whole vow to stay married for life and be faithful was important because a woman wanted some assurance that the man would stick around for the couple of decades it takes to raise the kids, and the man wanted some assurance the kids he was sticking around to raise were actually his. People stayed married because they had to, because societal and economic pressure didn't allow them to do anything else, not because they were so much more committed to each other than we are today. All of a sudden (on a historical timescale, anyway), we find ourselves in a situation where it's economically possible to live and raise a family on your own, where we as a society have decided that it's okay to live your life according to your personal choice rather than strict societal expectations, we're living way longer than ever before, men have rights and responsibilities for their children even if not married to the mothers (and we can definitively determine if they're really the father). The traditional reasons for marriage just don't exist anymore. Now we want to marry for love, and to be and stay in love with and loved by our spouse, but yet we also want that "piece of paper" to still mean for life, even though the thing we want to last for life has changed from partnership to love. We romanticize what we think marriage should be, forgetting that it actually never has been much like that.

None of that answers marriage vs. living together. My point is the decision shouldn't have anything to do with some romanticized notion of what marriage was like a century ago, or what marriage *should* mean. Marriage doesn't mean what it used to mean, and we as a society haven't yet figured out what its new meaning is, so everyone is kinda left figuring it out for themselves. It's no surprise we're all coming up with different answers. It's just not real convenient when couples have come up with answers that don't match each other.

well said

Speaking of strangers!....how have you been JC?

Well Quirk, I think Lpinkmoutain has given a good blueprint for what marriage should be today. From Lpinkmountain:

Perhaps marriage has a spiritual aspect. Perhaps there is some benefit of having a "soul mate" and I'm not using that term in a romantic sense. A partner in life's spiritual journey. Now I know not many marriages are based on that, but I think that is one big difference between being married and "living together."

I'd say that's the difference between marriages that will last and those that won't. It's the spiritual component that is missing, and I also don't mean this in a specific religious worship context. That's why marriages are failing and why they have always failed throughout history: one partner enters it half-heartedly, or with financial motives, or social motives. Even when marriage was necessary for a woman's survival, those reasons were often present. Today, earning power has changed the "why" of getting married. And we are bankrupt, spiritually, as a nation. We know nothing about joining spirits. (We do a good act of "noble" in the way people shout about what they do for "their children", but that's not what I am talking about.)

The fact that the SO is leaving his house to the son speaks volumes to me. He likes things just as they are, and whether it 's an inability to trust or a desire to keep his life uncomplicated, this man is not spiritually committed. Any marriage to him has a 50-50 chance.

"Any marriage to him has a 50-50 chance."

Any marriage to ANYBODY has a 50 50 chance, though (worse for second marriages). Not to recognize this and to protect yourself in case things go wrong is to bury your head in the sand.

Think about it, if 50% of all flights crashed, and you knew this going in, would you trust the pilot without being concerned? No, of course you wouldn't. There's no magic thing that says simply because you "believe" it won't happen to you too. That's an awfully smug and naive assumption and implies that you think your love is somehow superior to someone else's just because you say so.

I also disagree that the "only" soul mates are married people. I'm not sure how anyone would go about proving this even if it were possible.

As far as the leaving the house to the son, there are different laws in different states about property. My SO and I both have property and savings at more than $1 million each. I would want to make darn sure that if things didn't work out, that we would both keep what we had going in. Not all states have this provision, I'm lucky mine does. So the house, if he owns it before marriage, is his to do with as he chooses. If he decides differently down the road, he can make that decision. But who is to say that he won't provide for her in other ways so she could buy another house if he dies? I don't think it's uncommon for people to will property or other assets to both a wife and to children, so I would not draw any conclusions about that on face value.

Wow....finally someone more bitter about marriage than I....will you marry me Retro??...At the risk of breaking the engagement I have to say that I think that analogizing a plane crash to marriage is rather weak, as if I crash chances of survival are slim....if my marriage fails, I will survive to possibly crash another day, but I will choose another pilot....some are foolish enough to continually choose a bad pilot....personally I am going to be my own pilot and not blame my problems on any one else, thank you.

I'm not bitter at all, I'm just trying to understand why it's necessary for a committed relationship. It just doesn't seem like it is, when all is said and done.

I'm sorry if you didn't understand my analogy and took it so literally. I wasn't suggesting the pilot was the husband. I was only saying that it's important to go in with your eyes open, not clouded over with some romantic notion that if you believe in Tinkerbell everything is going to be fine.

I understood that the analogy was flawed, that's all... I was pointing out....I do the same thing sometimes ,so don't look at it as calling you out because I do enjoy reading your posts....your point described is spot on the money though...please don't take any hard feelings from what I said......I've absorbed the posts on here and I'll be adding my comments soon for your own critque if youi desire.(I can take it, really)..but not tonight...the bed calls for now

Just to put it another way, just because you are aware of the risks and prepare for them doesn't mean you're any less committed than someone else who chooses to ignore them. In fact you may even be more committed because you have taken the time to understand the pitfalls and might be better able to work through the rough spots as they come up because you'll be prepared.

I just get frustrated by the implication some people make here that all you have to do is believe and have faith or some perceived "spiritual" connection and you will somehow magically fall in the 50% that doesn't split up. It ain't that simplistic, folks. Again, very few enter into marriage thinking they're the ones who won't make it all the way.

Lpinkmoutain - I very much agree. I would have said the same thing.

About the alleged 50% statistic, we only need to know how it's obtained to know how meaningless it is. The statistic came from data published by the U.S. Department of Health Statistics that showed that there are about 8 marriages per 1,000 people and 4 divorces per 1,000 people in a single year (don't remember which year, but do know the ratio has gone down a bit now). Thus, 50%.

However, this didn't take into account the 50 million or so people already married. It simply compared marriages and divorces in a one year.

And even the few statistics we have assume that all people are equal for marriage and divorce purposes. They're not. People who marry at 25 or older are more likely to stay together than those who marry younger. People who have never divorced or cohabited are more likely to stay together. People who are religious/spiritual are more likely to stay together.

Anyway, even what we know doesn't predict the outcome for any given couple. Many of us know, for example, a couple who married very early, without knowing themselves, let alone the other person, and are happlily married today, after 35 years.

How's that view from under the sand?

Seriously, if these statistics didn't scare you in some way, would you be so quick to deconstruct them based on your own situation? What is the point of denying a fact of life and trying to bend it to suit your own ends?

" People who marry at 25 or older are more likely to stay together than those who marry younger. " Actually this is not true for second marriages. I'm wondering where you got your statistics.

"People who are religious/spiritual are more likely to stay together."

But how many of these people are HAPPILY deciding to stay together, vs. just staying together for religious reasons or for "the sake of the children?"

I said that people who had previously divorced or cohabited were less likely to stay together than average. So maybe I should have spelled out, "People over 25 who have never been married before or cohabited ...?"

And all the statistics are from the Department of Health Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As far as religious/spiritual people, I've never seen statistics on who's happy and who's not. I'd expect that a slightly larger percentage of unhappy marriages would stay together, just because religious/spiritual people are more likely than the general population to believe in marriage.

From my personal experience, I also think that the religious/spiritual attitude makes happier marriage, as people have an attitude of grace and forgiveness towards one another. But I guess that's just my head in the sand. Ha!

Retroactive, I get it that nothing any of us says will convince you that marriage is better than cohabitation. As far as I can see, you haven't contributed a single iota of information or persuasion to this discussion.

gotta chime in here ...

I've enjoyed reading this thread - daily. I'm finding myself very confused at this time and reading each post gives me a little "insight" to consider. I almost always shoot from my heart, but that doesn't stop me from TRYING to think out each this situation and consider other's experiences ...

We're all different - and everyone has expressed interesting thoughts and twists on this subject. I was most "aroused" by Jamie MT's comments some surprised the heck outta me others were very enlightening. But those from Janet, Retroactive and all the rest have really been informative. I thank you all for sharing your experiences, opinions and statistical info. For some of us, the decision to cohabitate or/and marry is not so cut & dry. Sometimes I wish I had strong enough convictions that I was ensured of an answer one way or another. But I dont. I waiver back and forth daily, remembering that both conditions are governed by some amount of emotional, spiritual, intellectual and legal commitment. All being worthy of consideration.

Please keep up the debate!!

"Retroactive, I get it that nothing any of us says will convince you that marriage is better than cohabitation."

Actually that's not true, joanne, just that you haven't convinced me that your opinion is based on anything other than wishful thinking.

I'm interested in trying to explore both sides of the issue, pro and con. I could argue both pro and con for both cohabitation and for marriage. I am not sure I could say the same for you.

I don't think you have to marry your soul mate or even live with them, and I don't think you have only one soul mate. And spiritual is not the same thing as religion, and staying together for "religious" reasons when your marriage is bad for your soul and spiritual growth is terribly sad. It has been my observation that people who are happily married are happy with themselves and their spiritual life, and by that I mean their search for value and meaning. And I think that one arguement for marriage is that it is a vehicle for value and deeper meaning in your life. Not the only one to be sure, not always the case to be sure, but I think marriage is a contender if both partners want that. The question was "Why get married instead of living together?" and my response was that I thought marriage with all its ceremony and legality, implied a committment of a deeper spiritual level to your spouse and the life you lead together. To me it implies "I am here to be a witness to your life, a mirror." It also implies "As a spouse, you will be enough for me, so you can relax, you can exhale." Of course we all know that this rarely is the reality of marriage. But what's wrong with keeping those things as the goal. Nowdays it seems like the dominant paradigm is, "If you can't meet the standard, lower the bar!" We all fall short of the bar, but that doesn't mean the bar is not there for a reason.

I would not want to live with someone without being married to them. We could have a perfectly wonderful relationship and not have to live together. But if someone was going to be in my face at the level of living together then they will profoundly affect every aspect of my life and my spiritual journey through it. And if I'm going to do that with someone, I want legal and ethical assurances. Whether they were strictly economic deals or not, I think smart people long ago realized that living with someone and building a joint life with them profoundly affects you and if you're going to do that you should at least try to associate it with some higher purpose and some higher goals and values. Hence an institution called marriage. People nowdays think that if they just live together they can somehow keep things superficial and not have to face the implications of joining your life with another. Heck, even housemates of the same sex have great influences on each other. Many couple live together, but how many couples, married or not, build a life together? It is a very difficult task whether you are married or not, building a life. I even know some older couples who for financial and health reasons do not live together, and yet they have built a life together. I'm thinking of one couple I know who live right next to each other and have built a life that includes mutal friends, family and the whole neighborhood.

I don't know Terri's situation, but I'm wondering if what she's feeling is not so much that she'd like a piece of paper that says she is married, so much as a feeling that she has a deeper relationship with the man she is living with. She posted about how she has a nagging feeling of insecurity and I don't think she is imagining it. So the only real question is which is worse, living with a man who has no real deep committment you, or living alone without anyone at all? In both cases it requires that you become an emotional island unto yourself. Not an easy question or spiritual choice, but that which does not kill us makes us stronger, and if Terri can find the answer to that one, honey please enlighten us!!
:-)

Let me also add one more thing. My goal in participating in this discussion is to really explore both sides of the issue and to try to be as open minded as possible about both sides. That I might challenge one side or another should not be looked at as anything other than an opportunity for you and to me to really THINK about what we are saying. If I present an opinion and someone shoots a couple of holes in it, I want to hear what they have to say if it's grounded in reason.

I've played devil's advocate for a reason here, not to be testy or difficult, but to ask the hard questions. This is NOT an easy issue, it's not cut and dried, and it's not something that many people want or need to decide solely based on emotional reasons. If I have a problem personally with any of the posts or posters, it's because I feel they're not presenting a case one way or another, but relying on emotion or a smug notion that marraige is by nature always "better" than living together. I am not sure that is true. It doesn't mean I know it's not, it means I'm not sure and I'd really like to intelligently talk about both sides, not dismiss one or another out of hand for purely emotional reasons.

This has been an interesting thread!! I think the reason that I'm comfortable with not being married is that I've always been single (and lived alone until now -- boy, was that an adjustment -- LOL!!). Perhaps, some people who marry in their 20's then get divorced want to remarry because they miss the state of being married and feel uncomfortable being single. As for me, I've always been single so I'm comfortable in that skin. My parents are in their late 70's, been married for 55 years and although they haven't said anything, I'm certain it bothers them that their little girl is living with a man outside of marriage. However, I also know that they don't want me to risk losing the assets I've worked hard to build. I think Jamie mentioned that both she and her fiance have assets that will become community property and that's fine if both parties are on the same financial ground, but not everyone is. In my case, I have the assets, he doesn't. It would have been nice if I'd fallen for a man who was my financial equal, but I didn't -- I fell in love with a poor man, but that doesn't mean that I want to risk everything I have. It also doesn't mean that he and his kids won't be provided for in my will. If we spend the next 30 or 40 years together (whether it be married or living together), I think he's entitled to a substantial portion of my estate. Actually, any man who spends 30 or 40 years with me is probably entitled to a whole lot more than that -- LOL!! But, the simple fact is that no one knows how long a relationship will last when you enter into it (regardless of whether or not there is a marriage license). Commitment depends on the individuals, not the state of matrimony. As for us, right now we are happy, comfortable and love each other very much. I'm certainly not going to knock marriage (I may be there someday!) and I realize it's important for many people, but I don't think it's fair for anyone to question our commitment to each other simply because we don't have the license.

As for Teri, I think lpinkmountain has hit the nail on the head -- I think she's questioning the relationship and his commitment. Teri -- please check in and let us know how you're doing.

Janet

Janet, I am very glad to read your post. I am wondering if you maybe would be willing to share with us your opinions about some of the things others have assumed were "downsides" about people living together? For instance as one poster assumed about cohabitating couples, how are you going to decide whre to spend holidays? Do you think you are less likely to hash out important problems like money, inlaws, kids? How are you dealing with financial decisions, are they joint decisions or separate ones? Do you consider that you're living "separate" lives even though you're living together? Do you feel you're any less likely to be "In it to the end" than if you were married? Do you feel you are together out of convenience or out of commitment and are less likely to take drastic measures to work out problems?

Thank you, I'd really appreciate hearing what you have to say.

I don't feel like I'm in a position to dictate what's right or wrong or try to influence people one way or another, but I don't have any problem answering questions about my life. I think we live (and are looked at) more as a couple than two people living together. Our lives are pretty much one with the exception of finances and occasionally his children. When we first met, he lived and worked in a different town about 30 miles away which is also where his mother lives -- his father has passed away and he does not have siblings. I live and worked in the same town where my parents and siblings are located (I was born and raised here). Most holidays and family dinners are at my house. My sister (who is single) and I were sharing the responsibility, but since I now have this extended family, I feel like I should bear more of the burden for hosting events (although everyone brings a dish and helps out). We include both families -- my parents, brother and sister, his mother and the son that lives nearby (when he doesn't have other plans with his mother or girlfriend). My SO's mother is not in the best of health and spent some time in the hospital last year. During this time, we'd go and see her together, run her errands and I did her laundry for her. I suppose I could have said, "She's your mother, you deal with her", but that's not the kind of relationship we have -- we handle things together. She and I get along pretty good -- she did have some harsh words for me last summer, but that's when she was sick and not feeling well -- all is fine now. As for my parents, I see them about once a week and he goes with me about half the time (sometimes I stop by on my way home from work and of course, he's not with me then). My parents have never been the "touchy, feely" type, but they really seem to like him.

Dealing with financial decisions, joint or separate?? His money is his and mine is mine, although we do discuss the pros and cons of purchases even though it may not be with our funds. I work in accounting and he became tired of living from paycheck to paycheck and asked me to help him with a budget so he could save and better spend his money. I've done that and made some suggestions on where he can cut back, but if he really wanted to buy something (even if I thought it was unnecessary), I may voice my opinion, but I would not stop him. The same goes for me. We don't argue about money and usually agree with each other most of the time. Major purchases (furniture and appliances) are made by one or the other and belong to that person. For example, since we've been together, I've bought a new bed and new sofa and will be buying a new range this year. I asked for his input, we discussed it, but the final decision was mine. If he were to move out tomorrow, those items would remain with me.

As for kids, I have none, he has two and we're not having any together. The oldest son will be 22 this fall and lives in Texas with his wife and daughter. The younger one will be 19 next month and still has a little bit of growing up to do. He's been out on his own, but is currently staying with his mother trying to save some money. We have a great relationship with both kids and since they're adults, we don't really raise them, but help them out when necessary. If there were a disagreement on how to handle the kids, once again, I'll voice my opinion, but bottom line is, they're his kids, he needs to handle them as he sees fit. I think I'm very, very lucky that the kids are adults -- trying to deal with raising kids in a divorce and custody issues would really put a strain on us. Also, I think it makes a difference that only one of us has kids -- there's no competition with the "your" kids vs. "my" kids thing.

Are we living separate lives even though we're living together?? Definitely not!! I'm not going to say that we're joined at the hip, but we do a lot of things together -- not just family related, but hobbies, too. He loves Jeeps and 4-wheeling. I can't say that I share his passion for it, but when he goes to 4x4 events (several times a year), I go along with him and take part. Likewise, I'm a crafter and do several shows each year. He goes with me and helps with set-up and the booth. We support each other in these things because we know the activity brings enjoyment to the other person.

Are we "in it to the end"?? Yes, I think as much as any other couple. We both know there's no guarantees in life and we both know that a successful relationship takes lots of communication and hard work. So far, we've put forth that effort and I think it's brought us closer. We've even started to plan our retirement (where we want to live, what we want to do) and that's 12 years away for me, longer than that for him. So, we are definitely thinking about the future.

Are we together out of convenience or commitment?? I don't think any relationship should be based on convenience -- not even a friendship. Before I met my SO, I hadn't been involved with anyone for several years. If all I wanted was a man in my life, I certainly could have had one but, I didn't want to settle for just anybody, I wanted someone I could love and who would love me in return. Someone who could make me laugh and who's company I enjoyed....somebody I could depend on and grow old with. Are we less likely to work out problems??? Again, that's just up to the individuals -- some people throw in the towel quickly, others don't.

I don't want to sound like I have a "Stepford" life, but I'm happy and my life is pretty good these days. It wasn't always that way -- I went through some crummy relationships just like everyone else. I guess I'm just in a lucky stage of my life.

Sorry this was so long....I'm sure I've put a few people to sleep by now!!

I really thank you for being honest and sharing that with us.

I think your post proves that we really can't make sweeping generalizations about the intentions of people who cohabit vs. people who get married. As you say, it depends on the people involved.

I think people have personal reasons why they want or don't want to be married, or why it is or isn't important to them. As lpinkmountain said above, though, I think the real problem is when a couple isn't in synch about whether or not to get married, especially if that causes them to question the sincerity or intent of their partner's commitment.

I think the mistake that occurs here though is to assume that just because someone doesn't want a formal marriage, that they lack commitment, or the same level of commitment as a married person, or that they can't be in it "for the long run."

I think, if anything, cohabitation probably requires a stronger capability for trusting the other person in the relationship and feeling secure within the relationship. I think for some people, a marriage license gives them the security they're looking for, but as I've pointed out before, I don't think this means a whole lot because we all know even the most well-intentioned marriages often break up. So it's not real security, it's just perceived security. But for some people, this might be enough to make them relax and feel more comfortable about their relationship. And that's not necessarily bad, if it prevents the relationship from going on the rails due to this being a nagging problem for one party.

I think it's interesting to really think about why it would be important to each of us, and understand the root of our motivations. Maybe if this were to happen, some people would be less anxious about whatever situation they find themselves in. If it's a matter of trust or doubting there's a mutual commitment, that's an important thing to explore whether one is planning to live together "permanently" or get a marriage license. It's the relationship and the commitment that matters most, so I guess the question is, how much do we really trust ourselves or our partner? How do we rationally assess and judge the stability and sincerity of our commitments?

I had a long post planned for here, but Janet relayed a lot of the seniments that I carry about this debate...I do believe that marrieds develop a comfort zone, whereas couples who "mutually" agree to live together are less apt to take each other for granted.....It appears that Teri was looking for marriage and maybe her partner wasn't....that happens and it's up to us as individuals to decide if we can accept it....if we can't, they move on and find someone that does feel like we do....they are out there....the last thing that one can do is settle because they think that if this one doesn't work, there will never be another opportunity

Retroactive wrote:

I think your post proves that we really can't make sweeping generalizations about the intentions of people who cohabit vs. people who get married. As you say, it depends on the people involved.

Actually, it doesn't prove that. No more than the young marriages that are very successful disprove the fact that marriages of young people are more likely to fail than those of older people. The specific does not disprove the general. Only points out the exceptions.

Oh, well, good luck to all. I'm headed back to the Kitchens forum.

Maybe your examples were the exceptions, joann, Regardless, they were awfully judgmental about the intents and motivations of cohabitants. That was my point and I'm sticking to it. This discussion was meant to explore both sides of an issue, not to smugly condemn a side you've never tried.

Retroactive, don't fall for that "why do we need a piece of paper for commitment" line. Men are master of that kind of manipulation and women fall for it! Wise up!

What was women's lib all about if not having respect for ourselves, among other things? I get so tired of hearing women on these forums shack up with a guy and then whine, "why won't he marry me?" For heaven's sake, WHY SHOULD HE? (I'm NOT saying you're in that category, but lots of young women are.)

Why are women so desperate that they will put themselves in the position of being a convenience for a man? I think some fool themselves and think if they go to bed with a guy, they'll change his mind about marriage. NOT!

By the way, I've been happily married for 40 plus years, and I wouldn't live with a man ever. I have too much respect for myself. Any day I'd sit around and wait for a man to ask me to marry him!

Man-O-Man, do I want to respond to that post. But my tongue is bleeding too profusely ...

I am frothing a little myself.

I erased the rest.

I think it boils down to financial independence or the lack of it. Do people think any less of Oprah or doubt her committment to Stedman because they choose not to marry? Nah. It is hard to feel secure when there is one paycheck, your name is not on the deed to the house, and there is no socially recognized contract. Men are not evil, but for many of us, especially those of us who were home with the children or working at 'wife" jobs, they still make more money.

I'm not even going to respond. The post is meaningless. The poster gives no reasons why marriage is necessary or why it's not. I'm not sitting around waiting for some guy to ask me to marry him, I'm not "falling" for anything. Talk about liberated, I have lived my own life on my own for decades, I own real estate, investments and have a great job. I'm not looking to "land" a prize steer, or a meal ticket because that's not my objective. I'm thinking about getting together with someone because I feel a commitment to that person. And I'm wondering what a marriage license is really going to buy us. So far, I don't think it buys us much except symbolism and some perceived security, which clearly may be important to some of us more than others.

Somethings been bothering me about BlueHeron's post ... well, it ALL bothers me, but the comment about womens lib is really nagging at me. The statement suggests that she follows the foundations of womens lib, but everything else in the post screams oppositon!!!

Even though Blueheron was obviously "mature" during the peak of Womens Liberation, her views conflict that of which I was taught. I understood the movement was where women started to question and thus, change societies boundries on issues relating to job inequities/discrimination, childcare, independance, gender stereotypes and sexist oppression. Ive never heard it used to support conservative restrictions (i.e shacking up vs marriage) but rather to FREE us of these constraints!

The whole outlook reflected in BlueHerons post sounds like something off Jerry Springer. You know, "talk to the hand" and "dont hate". Too close to the general attitude of kids today, wearing their "Hottie" and "Alpha Witch" t-shirts.

I do love to hear happy stories about people that have survived a marriage for 20 yrs, let alone 40, but come on shacking-up isnt about compliant sluts grasping for the attention of a man. I suspect someones been hurt somewhere along the road

Guess it's time for me to quit checking in on this topic - all valuable info must have been shared. Now it's just down to insular comments ... But thanks to all who shared their experiences; emotional, legal, etc. (Especially Janet KT - she seems to have it "all dialed in" - what a great union she shares with her SO.) It has raised some questions for me and answered some and will hopefully help me make the decision if the need arises.

Blueheron...welcome....and you should go and check out the abc's of single life thread and specifically look at the word judgemental.....by definition it can mean prudence....overly judgemental means that you have put yourself upon a pedastal above others and I'll guarantee you that nobody has any desire to listen to someone that goes that route....I might have to take that thread to the letter "t" tonight just so I can use the word "tact"....you should learn some

ok, I've had some (all right, a lot of) wine, so maybe this isn't the best time to respond, but...

"I get so tired of hearing women on these forums shack up with a guy and then whine, "why won't he marry me?" For heaven's sake, WHY SHOULD HE?"

Why should he? Well, maybe because he loves her and wants to share his life with her? Why did your lovely husband of 40 years marry you? Because he wanted to "shack up" and you would only agree with a ring on your finger? Wow, what a ringing endorsement of marriage! Where can I sign up?

That statement implies one of two things: either a woman is good for nothing but regular sex and housekeeping and there's no reason on earth a man would choose to marry her if he can get those without commitment, or women do have other value but men are just too stupid or selfish or incapable of genuine loving emotion to recognize or care about our other qualities. Either way, I'm pretty insulted, whether on my own behalf or that of my brothers and male friends (and, yes, BF and exBF) who deserve better.

However, blueheron isn't the only one to express some of these views. "Remember what Ann Landers used to say "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free." Sometimes she's right." Other words for the same sentiment. Or the "overly judgmental" and tactless point of view: "My conscience would bother me if I lived with someone in a romantic relationship without being married. Call me old-fashioned or principled if you wish. " So what, those of use who make other choices are lacking in principles?

Differences in opinion are one thing. Outright prejudice, or narrow-minded judgmets when faced with other people's choice for their own personal lives, is offensive and insulting.

Maybe I and others have misinterpreted your intent behing these comments? I'd love to hear clarifications of intent that demonstrate my misinterpretation.

Under the law, marriage is a financial contract, nothing else.

Marriage definitely protects children, so if a couple is planning to have children, then it's best for the kids to get married.

But if no children are planned... well, 90% of women "marry up", that is, marry men who make more money than them. So it's usually in a woman's best financial interest to get married, because then either she gets half of his possessions (in some states) or half of his future earnings (in all states).

But for all those men who earn more than their SOs, this is a big financial disincentive to get married.

A second financial disincentive (for both men and women) is the high cost of divorce. Getting married increases the chance of a pricey divorce from 0% to 50%.

So, if TerriSS wants to get married to this man, she has to convince him that the social, personal, and religous reasons are stronger than the two serious financial disincentives he faces.

Good luck!

Hi all,

Wow, what a thread. Not sure if the OP ended up marrying or leaving her BF. Whichever, I hope all is well for her.

One thng I'd like to point out that I don't think was really addressed in this thread, is her self esteem with regard to being in a situation where she has no control. No, not the type of control as in "manipulation", but the basics; being the woman of the home. Women are nurtures and have a "need" to take care of others, be it out spouse, BF, our children, or other friend of family member, or her home. In the OP's case, she will not have a home to take care of, to show off, to comfort others with. This may sound a little too literal, but it's the same situation as having the MIL and DW making decisions on what is best for their man (son or mate). I think the OP would do well to really come to terms with her wants and needs in a relationship. Why does she want this man- security maybe? Is there a commitment from each partner? If the commitment is there, then no need to worry. However, I really dont' hear a commitment from him that he will hold her high when it comes to his life, his family, his home. He still has significant ties to his home and family. I will say though, that leaving the home to his grands is not a bad thing. We obtain things and want to be sure that our families are taken care of after we are no longer around. However the level of understanding of his emphasis depends on whether he has made it clear to everyone that she is his GF, over everything and everythng else. If that is the case, then she should feel comfortable in knowing that the house is just a vessel where they live, but not their life. On the other hand, if his commitment is to his level of comfort - as another poster mentioned, is with having a sexual relationship with someone to be there for him, to cook, clean, etc., that doesn't have a lot of "lip", so to speak. If he is satisfied, he's not going to be OK with anything else. Nor, is he going to understand her feelings. If she says anything, it is "lip" - which he again, does not want.

OK - long post here. I guess this is a touch subject.

Again, hope all works out...

Wow, I came across this thread while searching for kitchen stuff - don't know why it came up but it's sure interesting, so since most people on the thread seem to believe being married is best, I'll play devils advocate and add my 2 cents to the other side.

Everyone really has to go with what they're comfortable with but I think the older you get the less reason there is to get married and there are a few distinct disadvantages.

First of all many people don't have kids or if you're older the kids are grown up. So getting or staying married so that the kids don't "suffer" with unmarried parents isn't an issue. Since that's one of the advantages of marriage and the reason most people get married in the first place it really doesn't apply to older couples.

Older people in many cases each have their own assets. Co-mingling them without a very detailed pre-nup could be dangerous.

I think if you're older and you both work and especially if you each have your own assets you would be better off filing your taxes separately even as a married couple. Why should your assests be placed at risk for any mistake or "mistake" in your partners numbers or vice versa? This is especially true if one or both of you have a business.

Keeping that in mind you have to realize that a lot of credits go bye bye with married filing separately like the child tax credit, the retirement savings contributions credit, itemized deductions, and the deduction for personal exemptions.

Married filing separately is a larger tax hit than single.

It's almost impossible for Married filing separately to contribute to a Roth IRA. Maximum allowable income is phased out at $10,000.

Married filing separately can't take the credit for the elderly or the disabled unless you lived apart for the entire year.

Married filing separately can forget about deducting education loan interest - so if you're thinking about going back to school that's a bigger financial hit.

If Married filing separately has capital gains losses the amount that's deductible is cut in half. (i.e. capital losses are capped at $3000 currently for married filing jointly and for single - married filing separately is $1500 each.)

Married filing separately is taxed on 85% of Social Security income, unless your income is extremely low or you didn't live together.

If none of the above fazes you and you're fine with the either the joint filing risk or the separate filing financial hit consider these other reasons.

In some states when people marry they also marry their spouses debts. Not good if you have assets and your spouse doesn't and he has debts.

In community property states you have to be very careful you don't inadvertantly co-mingle your separate assets or they can turn into community property.

Still together married or not? Well when it comes time, 2 Social Security checks are better than one. (to be fair, on the flip side of that you do forfeit the survivor benefit if you're not married, so if your spouses check is higher than yours you can't claim the higher amount) BUT if you're a widow(er) and you're collecting survivors benefits now they will go away when you remarry so if your new spouses benefits are lower than your survivors benefits that's a bad trade off.

And if by now you're all thinking there is absolutely no romance at all in all of the reasons I listed above, does romance really come with the piece of paper that SAYS you're committed or does it come with the real, honest and true committment you actually feel? It's either there or it's not and a ceremony isn't going to magically conjure it up and sustain it and lack of a ceremony isn't going to make it disappear.

The best example of all:

Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn... are you really going to say these two aren't 'soul mates' because they're not married?

Well, I'm the original poster and I was wishing this topic would go away.... since it hasn't, I'll fill in the "rest of the story". We did end up getting married. We did it beside a creek with all our children there. I have four grandchildren now. I guess getting married hasn't brought me the happiness I thought it would. I think happiness must come from within. I'm still working on it....

Very good points and I totally agree. When my ex and I separated (I left), we went on about our lives, friendly but def. apart, and did not immediately divorce. He became involved with someone that wanted to get married and he filed - we are now divorced. Needless to say, that relationship didn't last long after that. He has since asked me about remarriage. For some of the same reasons you mentioned, I have been reluctant to marry again. Legally there are benefits, but if a couple plans financially and otherwise, the living together can be great. Who needs a piece of paper, other than for property (including financial) rights. That can be accomplished fairly in other ways. OK, if family members heavily involved in decision making after your death, that might be more difficult. However, it can be difficult even if married.

If there are religious concerns, the question of living together without marriage may be a showstopper. Some people would have legitimate concerns in that regard. To some, "living in sin" is just that, and that shouldn't be ignored. That is something the couples should discuss considerably. But the legal, tax and other reasons can be worked out.

One thing though, as I said in my previous post, the OP I think was more concerned about the lack of concern for issues related to his family. In her situation the guy, I think, should step up and embrace her and their relationship, in front of his family. That doesn't mean he has to cast his family away, but if he wants her in his life, living as a "wife", he needs to establish some provisions to accomoadate her as his "wife". I've seen too many cases where that did not happen and the "wife" was left out in the COLD, with nothing - not even her own possessions, money, etc. because she couldn't prove they were hers. Some states recognize Common Law, and others frown on it pretty hard. Pretty sad when that happens.

Anyway, good points.

gng

(blueheron)By the way, I've been happily married for 40 plus years, and I wouldn't live with a man ever.

hmmm.......
so they must live in two different houses?
I couldn't resist.

teriss... It is hard to find happiness sometimes:(
You are right it has to come from within (the grandchildren must help some though huh?)
I have been married 15 years this Month. I love him with all my heart (highschool sweethearts) but I do have happiness issues, not with him or our two kids but just with myself, I know this and I deal with it, not that I am unhappy ALL of the time, but anyway..
Okay it is time to put the bottle of Hot Damn away for the night, I am becoming maudulin (sp??)

(sorry for intruding, guess I should head back over to doomsday (the marriage forum, teriss STAY AWAY FROM THERE, IT IS TOO DEPRESSING!!!!!!!)

Hi Micke....Happiness is realized by finding a niche that satisfies YOU....It's up to US to find in our own hearts why we are dissatisfied with our lives and to make it right. For some here, living the single life gives us satisfaction. For others they come here wondering "what happened?" What I have found is that there are a lot of people in search of happiness but sometimes they just don't see the answer staring them in the face because they are afraid of change. It's scary to consider, but my adage is that life is too short to live in an unhappy relationship. I am happy today.
I hope you have a great Thanksgiving!

@GingerTN

I highly doubt you will see this message. However, if anyone who is still reading this post can please explain the intent of the statements below to me, I would appreciate it.

"DO NOT live together again UNTIL he walks down the aisle with you, and "all the above conditions" have been met. Move in only after he and you have signed the marriage license and the deed of trust. If he won't then you don't."

Does this sentiment strike anyone else as terrorism? Are you kidding me? This is EXACTLY what is wrong with marriage. The whole thing is essentially a business contract slanted too greatly in favor women. If a woman really wants to be with someone and truly enjoys being with someone, then why place that condition on the relationship unless kids are the issue?

Women like the idea of marriage more than the actual terms and experience of marriage. Look at the comments of all the miserable, married people. This is a sampling of the general population. Go to other sites that discuss the same topic, same thing. People get trapped in these horrible marriages, find out raising kids isn't all it is cracked up to be, and just generally act on what they think they are supposed to do in this society. All of it is absurd. Marriage should go the way of 3, 4, 5, 6, year contracts at least. Or at least add those options, with specific conditins as much as possible (of course, everyone's situation would be harder to figure out by courts). Privitization of marriage may sneak its way in there, too. As long as kids are not too great an issue, people would not re-sign marriage contracts that had terms like that!

Marriage is no different than any other celebration - it's too commercialized! If the government would keep their knives out of the pie, the whole of civilization would be much better off. It's all about the almighty dollar!

Hey K-J!!

You are so right! However, the government isn't the only entity looking at the $$$. Marriage is a relationship, just like the friendships we have with others. The only reason it gets ugly is because of the give and take when things get sticky. In similar situations with our friends, we may stop speaking for some time or 4ever. But we don't try to take someone to the cleanss or expect to trade what each has put into the friendship. But we do have that opportunity when considering divorce. It's like punitive damages - whatever you feel you deserve. The judge then decids whether you are worth the amount you want. The only real difference is that entire lives have centered around the kids and marriage and I guess the consequences of starting over. Add that to hurt feelings, and you have an ugly divorce - with all the emotional baggage that comes with it. I was listening to an author the other day and he analyzed the reason for the emotion - people just will not say "I'm sorry". Althougth he was speaking about child support disputes, it all still makes sense. Both parties of a divorce feel the other didn't measure up. If the parties would just realize that it just wasn't a good thing and then move on, it wouldn't be as bad. Even if you feel you are losing something tho the other person, just cut your losses and go. What difference does it make if you can have the freedom to make it better?

raoulfelder, sounds like you have experience with contracts - maybe of the government type??

It might be a good idea to start a new thread on this topic. The OP has requested that we knock it off, and she's entitled I suppose. This is probably a sensitive subject and originally written under a lot of emotional stress. I hope she has a very happy life with her new hubby though. However, this topic is worth continuing - HOT SUBJECT! Maybe a new thread - anyone...????

OK, not trying to do the good cop/bad cop thing - just think we ALL have a lot to say on this subject...

gng

Let's rehash again....

Walks, the phrase 'rehash again' is redundant!

Jo, you're just cracking me up this weekend - and i had a cup of coffee in my hand!! Yeah, I guess you're right on that one.

Good morning, Mary! Hey, I was just being naughty - if Walks wants to repeat herself, that's fine with me!!!