Do you think the practice of marriage could die out? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Do you think the practice of marriage could die out?

2003
01-15-2012, 08:09 PM
Seeing the damage that divorce does, to children and all, seing the financial side of it where peoples future plans are set back or ruined (historically mainly men) by having to sell everything to pay half to their spouse, quite frankly, whats the point of marriage in this modern day world where most men AND women work?

Why not just stay together and have kids. If you ever want to break up just break up and go your seperate ways, rather than having to sell houses/businesses/possesions, make it even more traumatic on the kids?

Ive just never quite understood this pooling of everything together money wise. Why not just keep finances seperate?

Certinfy
01-15-2012, 08:18 PM
Yes. I mean it's obvious it's on the decline now so I would assume unless something fairly dramatic happens it'll continue in this trend. I don't think it's down to women working too now though. More like because of secularisation I say.

Of course there's somethings that cohabitation etc. can't match in terms to marriage (at the moment at least), but in my eyes I don't really care much about those things. I don't see myself ever getting married because the way I see it is that as long as I love a girl, she loves me, we want to be together and have kids then some stupid legal document doesn't change anything.

Har-Tru
01-15-2012, 08:30 PM
I believe it will. As it is, it's bound to die out.

Nathaliia
01-15-2012, 09:35 PM
i didn't want to get married when i was younger
probably cos i saw people cheating around and i didnt think myself i could love / stand someone for a lifetime (while now i'm certain it's a matter of finding the right person and caring of that relationship by both sides...this way it simply won't fail...)

but now i am sure it's one of a kind act of intimacy... if you choose your partner very carefully it can be a wonderful cruise through life together. i want to have a family and something stable at life, a home to come back to
it's more a matter of vow given to each other and wearing someone's ring (not looking available to everyone)... little gestures that have deep symbolic meaning

if someone treats love/friendship as a thing from a supermarket, when i treat it badly and it breaks then i leave without a consequence and buy a new one, then of course such people are not meant for marriage

i think as well we can ask if funerals will die out one day. it's the same symbolic meaning taken from ancient prehistory and magical rituals.

on the other hand marriage is also a legal deal, it's not like someone takes bags after 20 years and says "i met someone new. bye" it's legal consequences. i suspect at least some people, subcionsciously, avoid marriage to avoid consequences, because they don't know themselves and th partner well enough to put trust through a legal partnership. it's like thinking, "hmmm. i may stop to need you one day"

like in every other private law deal, if you break it, you must pay. ofc it's easy to not pay. current society's hedonism strikes back.

one thing i hate though and never would have is a wedding. like i say, to me it's something insanely intimate, and i wouldn't even want my parents around. no one.

emotion
01-15-2012, 09:48 PM
I think it could and probably should.

Topspindoctor
01-15-2012, 11:14 PM
Ive just never quite understood this pooling of everything together money wise. Why not just keep finances seperate?

Are you still living with your parents?

buddyholly
01-15-2012, 11:26 PM
as long as I love a girl, she loves me, we want to be together and have kids then some stupid legal document doesn't change anything.

It changes taxes.

And I see the courts being even more clogged than now with custody battles etc. And what if neither of you want to be left with the kids? I guess that is why ''legal'' documents are far from stupid.

Sham Kay
01-16-2012, 12:07 AM
I'm relying on it so I won't have to explain my commitment issues again.

Mae
01-16-2012, 12:21 AM
Actually current studies do show it dying out. That doesn't mean that I think it should die out. I'm just stating that it does seem to be dying out now!

Kat_YYZ
01-16-2012, 05:11 AM
Seeing the damage that divorce does, to children and all, seing the financial side of it where peoples future plans are set back or ruined (historically mainly men) by having to sell everything to pay half to their spouse, quite frankly, whats the point of marriage in this modern day world where most men AND women work?

Why not just stay together and have kids. If you ever want to break up just break up and go your seperate ways, rather than having to sell houses/businesses/possesions, make it even more traumatic on the kids?

Ive just never quite understood this pooling of everything together money wise. Why not just keep finances seperate?

You will have all the same problems with or without a marriage certificate. As soon as you live together, you have common-law status in most countries.

And with good reason. If you and a woman have a 10-year relationship, and, as you indicated, you both work... who gets the house and the furniture and all the stuff if you break up? If you paid the mortgage while she paid for the utilities and food, then she has still built up some equity in the home by paying for those other life expenses (that you consumed).

Even two buddies living as roommates -- who have separate TVs, beds, clothes, etc -- might still split the cost of shared appliances like a microwave, a vacuum cleaner, etc. So if they both move out to separate lives, who gets what? Even that duo might have a dispute over it, let alone people in a long, emotional relationship.

And having separate expenses in a shared life will cost you both more; any financial expert will say so. But even so, you cannot have everything separate. All of these problems would happen after a long co-habitation, whether there is a marriage certificate or not.

And that's without kids. If you end up with kids, there's no way you can just walk away from each other as though your relationship never happened. You will in a way be stuck with each other as long as that child is a dependant. You both are financially responsible for the minor child(ren).

2003
01-16-2012, 08:31 AM
You will have all the same problems with or without a marriage certificate. As soon as you live together, you have common-law status in most countries.

And with good reason. If you and a woman have a 10-year relationship, and, as you indicated, you both work... who gets the house and the furniture and all the stuff if you break up? If you paid the mortgage while she paid for the utilities and food, then she has still built up some equity in the home by paying for those other life expenses (that you consumed).

Even two buddies living as roommates -- who have separate TVs, beds, clothes, etc -- might still split the cost of shared appliances like a microwave, a vacuum cleaner, etc. So if they both move out to separate lives, who gets what? Even that duo might have a dispute over it, let alone people in a long, emotional relationship.

And having separate expenses in a shared life will cost you both more; any financial expert will say so. But even so, you cannot have everything separate. All of these problems would happen after a long co-habitation, whether there is a marriage certificate or not.

And that's without kids. If you end up with kids, there's no way you can just walk away from each other as though your relationship never happened. You will in a way be stuck with each other as long as that child is a dependant. You both are financially responsible for the minor child(ren).

True;

I think kids who grew up with divorced parents might be turned off marriage.

Then again, as you say, having a legal document wont change a split up on how it affects the kids. The emotional damage will be the same.

Kat_YYZ
01-16-2012, 09:49 AM
True;

I think kids who grew up with divorced parents might be turned off marriage.

Then again, as you say, having a legal document wont change a split up on how it affects the kids. The emotional damage will be the same.
Yep, I think this is a big factor in the drop in the marriage rate.

One thing I don't believe in is alimony. I don't even understand it. Child support, yes, of course..., but spousal support when there are no kids involved should be abolished.

And one other thing: The government should make pre-nuptial agreements mandatory. When you go to get a marriage license, you must fill in a pre-nup, or you don't get your license. You don't have to be rich to need one; everyone needs to decide how they will divide up the assets ahead of time to get rid of these messy divorces. It'd increase the cost of the license by a little bit, to pay for the legal assistant that would advise the couple and make sure the agreement they come up with is legally sound. You can be as specific as you want (itemizing family heirlooms that you wouldn't want to lose in case of divorce) or just make it super-simple and say "we agree to sell off everything and split the cash 50/50." The government is not interested in your "true love" and how you'll never ever split; it's a rule and it's the same for everyone (and if you don't split it won't ever be used anyways).

This would also take the heat off people who'd like to have one but don't want to hurt their partner's feelings by bringing up the subject.

EddceLLent
01-16-2012, 02:50 PM
My parents divorced when I was a kid but it's not turned me off the idea of marriage. It's just made me realise that I need to be more mature and considerate than they were before I make such a significant commitment :).

I agree that what comes with divorce isn't a consequence of having got married in the first place. Married or not, you can still break up and be subject to most of the same difficulties you'd have in a divorce. Only difference i'd say would perhaps be that married people are more reluctant to break from that commitment - but if they're unhappy is that a good thing?

azure
01-17-2012, 07:51 AM
Well I personally wanna stay away from marriage as the prospect of "losing half my stuff" and having to support a former spouse are daunting. I would be a little more open to it if my spouse was financially stable.

Lee
01-18-2012, 03:27 AM
Yep, I think this is a big factor in the drop in the marriage rate.

One thing I don't believe in is alimony. I don't even understand it.

How about stay-at-home parent?

I am not looking for a divorce but before I quit my job to take care of our son, my income was more or less the same as my spouse. Now, I will not be able to find a job paying even close to what I made 14 years ago.

Kat_YYZ
01-18-2012, 09:05 AM
How about stay-at-home parent?

I am not looking for a divorce but before I quit my job to take care of our son, my income was more or less the same as my spouse. Now, I will not be able to find a job paying even close to what I made 14 years ago.

I specifically referred to marriages that end and there are no children. The equation changes completely when kids are involved.

Garson007
01-18-2012, 11:42 AM
They should just chuck out the legal stuff, imho. There is no reason that people should benefit from the government for being married (social conservatism my ass). If they insist on it, then insist that you should be able to have the same benefits and legalities drawn up in any contract.