Real World Event Discussions

To be (married) or not to be (married)

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, December 12, 2025 15:37
VIEWED: 2105
PAGE 2 of 3

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, November 19, 2010 5:49 PM

I am one of those who believes I shouldn't have sex until I got married. So I had to get married.

(Of course, that only applies to me, mind you. I make no judgments on anyone else.)

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NIKI2

Friday, November 19, 2010 7:35 PM

On that subject:

Quote:
You've been living with the love of your life for months or years. Things are going great. So why get married at all and possibly mess up a good thing?

Cohabiting couples often decide to get married for one of two reasons, experts say.

The couple might see marriage as a jump-off-the-cliff type declaration that "we're all in" this relationship. Or the "I do's" are said because the person who has been reluctant to walk down the aisle finally decides that step would be less painful than losing their partner.

.....

But that pre-wedding, living together arrangement should have a limit, according to Britain's Prince Charles

While responding that he was thrilled that his son Prince William had finally asked his live-in girlfriend Kate Middleton to marry him, Prince Charles also remarked, "They've been practicing long enough."

.....

But what if one cohabiting partner can't get the other to commit?

Psychologist Diana Kirschner suggests taking a "cost of loss stance" to try to create commitment in the other person. She says it is not an ultimatum but a communication that the relationship may be lost if it doesn't proceed to marriage.

Start by deciding what relationship you want, she says. That may be finding a committed partner to build a life together and have children. But whatever your love intention is, she says, take a stance for yourself.

"You announce it to your partner. 'I'd love you to be the one. Here's why I think you would be great. However, if you're not available to do this, I will be taking measures to look at other people."

Kirschner, author of "Love in 90 Days: the Essential Guide to Finding Your Own True Love," says in many cases that kind of statement is not voiced but it may be in the air.

"If the man is dragging his feet, he knows his partner is not going to hang in there much longer because she may want to have children, she's getting in her late 30s -- he just knows."

And it's that moment when the potential for loss occurs, Kirschner says, that the couple "becomes very ripe for commitment, becomes very ripe for moving forward."

More at http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/11/18/cohabiting.trigger.marriage/index
.html?hpt=Sbin

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

PHOENIXROSE

Friday, November 19, 2010 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
it absolutely boggles my mind to see them put themselves in the hole so enormously just when they're starting out; or put their parents in the hole for one day of complete attention on themselves and showing the world...whtaever it is they're showing the world.

I am so with you there, Niki. I have a friend who is "engaged" and is going to spend something like $10,000 on a "wedding" next year. Why do I put those words in quotes? Well, I'll tell you. She's engaged to another woman. The marriage won't be legal unless something changes drastically. They're going to drop the money anyway. Why? It's beyond my comprehension. I say, if you need the legal rights, go to the courthouse and sign the thing and be done. If you really want to throw a party, that's fine too but throw one within your means. These in many ways wonderful and beautiful women are going to throw a huge party that is not within their means and not even have legal rights to show for it! Of course, if I voiced this to them, I would doubtless be the bad guy. But I think it's a huge financial mistake. Even if they were gaining something from it, I would think it was a financial mistake, but to have the expense without the tie being legal just seems to compound the mistake.

Just because something can't be explained doesn't mean it becomes yours.

NIKI2

Friday, November 19, 2010 8:09 PM

Wow. That's wild...what does it say about my premise that women do it because they're conditioned to marry, have children, etc.? Obviously this doesn't fit, but I think it might still be connected. Maybe "doing it up big" is their way of defense, saying "we're just as good as a hetero couple"? I dunno, but it sounds truly idiotic to me, I'm afraid to say!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

LILI

Friday, November 19, 2010 8:38 PM

Yeah, I kind of have to agree on that being a bad idea. My partner and I have agreed to commitment, but if we ever have a wedding there will need to be a marriage license involved. We talked about getting a license in one of the states that offer them, but that sort of thing is in too much flux right now to make it worth it. We're actually pretty happy to just call ourselves a couple at this point, living together and being happy. We did get rings, mostly because we got tired of having to explain to strangers that we weren't interested. A ring says it so much more succinctly. Those didn't break the bank, either. Both of us have some heaping piles of student loan to worry about, we can't be loose with our money.

Facts are stubborn things.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Friday, November 19, 2010 9:47 PM

Yep, she wants a big dress and a special day to be a princess. She enjoys watching those expensive wedding shows but claims she'll never be a 'bridezilla' or go super expensive. I'd rather get things done at a courthouse, then throw one hell of a party for everyone! Booze, dancing, maybe HALO games in a big projector, it'd be great, and less expensive. But I don't think I get to choose those kind of things, I just get to be there. Maybe I can ensure that there is cheesecake though, that would be nice.

She wants babies too, but she doesn't want to stay at home. When she finishes grad school, if she can find a job in her specialty, she'll be making easily at least half again what I'd be able to pull in with a good teaching job. Much as I'd like to be the big manly breadwinner, I'm totally okay with her dwarfing my income ('specially considering how small mine would be) if we did live together and/or get married. Still, I want to at least convince myself I could support us both if needed.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, November 19, 2010 11:50 PM

Niki, I sometimes think the point is not 'married' or 'not married' but what sort of committment you both have and I think people need to be more thoughtful of that when they enter into relationships that involve, most importantly, having kids together and importantly, but less so, merging or sharing property, because the fall out of ending such relationships acrimoniously is enormous, regardless of whether you have signed the contract or not.

What a lot of people don't realise is that laws around marriage (and in this country cohabitating) have come about as a way to sort through the messy stuff of people ending their relationships, not the other way around, which people kind of assume. we can all live together, cohabitate in pairs or groups of a variety of different sexes, and to me it doesn't make one iota of difference until the crunch time comes when relationships fail. That will continue to happen in ever increasing numbers regardless of that laws allow what, and people will continue to be unhappy as a result, and children's lives will be affected, sometimes ruined, and people will lose money and bitch and whine.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, November 20, 2010 2:03 AM

I still think the whole concept is completely idiotic.

Firstoff, I don't give a rats ass about the sanction and approval of government OR society, given my lack of respect for either one...

And secondly, it's a goddamn (pun intended) government endorsement of religion, no matter how you slice it, and that has NEVER sat well with me.

-F

GEEZER

Saturday, November 20, 2010 3:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I still think the whole concept is completely idiotic.

Firstoff, I don't give a rats ass about the sanction and approval of government OR society, given my lack of respect for either one...

And secondly, it's a goddamn (pun intended) government endorsement of religion, no matter how you slice it, and that has NEVER sat well with me.

-F

Not sure I agree with that, from personal experience. Madame and I are pretty much as non-religious as folk can be. When I asked her to marry me, she said she'd be just as happy to live with me without the legalities. We finally decided that we wanted to go ahead with the marriage and ceremony because we wanted to celebrate with our friends and family, and wanted to solemnize the commitment we made to each other. Also, we did it to please my wonderful cousin Sara - my mother's sister-in-spirit - who wanted us to get married in her home. We've never had one regret.

Also have to note that ease of buying property and cars together, getting insurance, being able to both be responsible for my mom's health care when Alzheimer's appeared, etc. didn't suck.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, November 19, 2025 3:40 PM

Japan is finally debating what a family can be

https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2025/11/12/japan-is-finally-
debating-what-a-family-can-be