I find it quaint that people still think a ring and ceremony actually counts for a big "committment". Depending on the state you marry/divorce in, marital property laws and all, it doesn't matter if you enter into a mortgage as business partners or newlyweds.

I find it quaint that single people feel qualified to tell married people what actually counts for "commitment".

I say this because if this were RL I would cheerfully bet you $500 that you are single.

I say that because only someone who has never been married doesn't understand the difference between cohabitation and marriage. I have never, ever met a married person who did not "get" the difference after they got married, even if they thought they were in a just-as-committed relationship beforehand.

It's nice that state laws now protect those who chose to cohabitate without marriage, but it is amusingly naive to think there is no difference between shacking up and saying to your families, the community, the entire world (and God, if you believe in that kind of thing) that you intend to stay together for the rest of your lives.

Also, depending on where you live, ie, a high cost of living and no-fault divorce state, a mortgage is a bigger committment. If you need 2 incomes to make the purchase and downpayment, and pay the mortgage, you might even say that extracting yourself from a mortgage is as big a deal as getting out of a marriage when renting.

Whoo hoo!!! I win $500!!! I was married once before. Wow. That turned out poorly. I'm glad there were no kids there. I have a long-term committed partner now, we own a house, have a 2 year old daughter, and might have a "committment" ceremony soon. If after that we decide that we need that crappy legal marriage certificate for any reason (health insurance coverage for both if one loses a job) we'll hit the JOP for $50 and get it done.

She'll be thrilled to hear I've got the $500. We were wanting a new sofa to go with the repainted living room. Shoot me your email so we can arrange payment.

I have always been confused about the idea that their is no difference in the level of "commitment". If that is the case then why not get married. The fact remains that the "crappy legal marrige certificate" is the difference. Congratulations you were married once, and that went badly and now you are hostile toward marriage. That hostility betrays the fact that you are aware of the difference between marriage and a unmarried co-habitation. You tried the marriage thing, it failed and now you want to hold on to your "out".

Reality: You don't have to be committed to live together, you don't have to be committed to have a child together, you don't have to be committed to own property together and you definitely don't have to be committed to have sex. The committment part comes from the marriage and you can spin it any way you want but the decision to not get married betrays your lack of commitment.

"I was married once before."

Sounds like you're out $500...

Besides, the couple sounds like they're about to make a huge mistake... nowadays, they should go for a house (not a condo).

I'm not "single", so give me my money. The check boxes on all the forms I've had to fill out are "Single - never married", "Married", "Divorced", and "Widow/widower".

I'm not hostile towards marriage. Right now marriage isn't fiscally responsible... we are doing better with all reportings as non-married.... taxes, etc, etc. If that changes, we'll change the status.

Also, getting married isn't much of a committment. You just have to spend approx $3000 and wait 4-6months to get the paperwork reversed. Committment isn't a piece of paper (marriage certificate or mortgage).

califuberalles:

"I was married once before."

Sounds like you're out $500...

Besides, the couple sounds like they're about to make a huge mistake... nowadays, they should go for a house (not a condo).

No. He's okay. SWR's original comment continued "Someone who has NEVER been married..." etc. He has. He wins.

I like your second statement though! Although I prefer renting myself...now THAT'S (relatively) commitment free, and I love it!

I find it equally amusing how so many married people think THEIR definition of commitment is the ONLY acceptable definition of the word. Of all the couples I know, easily half of the married couples are less committed, less happy, and less "normal" than the couples in a long-term relationship. Face it: Many times married couples are only staying together because a) it's less effort than divorce, b) one morgage payment is less then two c) they're convinced that divorce is the bae-all/ end-all of human failure. Has little to do with how committed they personally are, or even how much they like each other, forget about LOVE. . .

Yea, without a religous ceremony and papers filed with the government, two people CAN'T possibly be truely committed. Tell your story walking, 'cuz I find it laughable at best, or at least that part that's not insulting to a person's intelligence.

If you think about pointing out that I'm single, well think about it again, married 16+ years.

ghouck:

I find it equally amusing how so many married people think THEIR definition of commitment is the ONLY acceptable definition of the word. Of all the couples I know, easily half of the married couples are less committed, less happy, and less "normal" than the couples in a long-term relationship. Face it: Many times married couples are only staying together because a) it's less effort than divorce, b) one morgage payment is less then two c) they're convinced that divorce is the bae-all/ end-all of human failure. Has little to do with how committed they personally are, or even how much they like each other, forget about LOVE. . .

If you think about pointing out that I'm single, well think about it again, married 16+ years.

Beautiful! Well put! The actual statistic is something like 75% of all married couples are unhappy (of those who DON'T divorce.) Which fully supports my regular observation of how ANGRY some married people get when others divorce! Why be so bitter at someone else breaking free from misery if you're so happy yourself? Could it be...maybe...JEALOUSY??? I know if I was happily married I wouldn't begrudge someone else trying to free themselves from a miserable marriage...but if I was UNHAPPILY married I'd probably envy the hell out of them. I'm honest with myself about those kind of things.

But hey, I suppose if someone wants to puff up their chest about being "committed" (which has other definitions, by the way) and stay miserably married until their dying breath, be my guest.

There is a difference in level of commitments. For some people, a marriage license is needed to signify what level they are in, for some people it isn't. Neither way is right or wrong.

What I find odd is people pointing to the marriage license like it is the commitment itself. How many divorces, affairs, etc out there show people who are perfectly comfortable with both having a marriage license and not truly being committed?

The illusion that a marriage license means that you are really, really committed is silly. Life happens, people screw up, people grow apart. A marriage license doesn't protect anybody.

LOL the second I hit post I thought "I've got to put a disclaimer!" Marriage licenses do protect people legally, the LW does need to either have this or some other legal protection in place before she signs a mortgage.

My prior post meant protect the heart and the life.

SWR:

It's nice that state laws now protect those who chose to cohabitate without marriage, but it is amusingly naive to think there is no difference between shacking up and saying to your families, the community, the entire world (and God, if you believe in that kind of thing) that you intend to stay together for the rest of your lives.

Ok so then my question is are a couple married, if in fact they do state, publicly and pointedly, that they are in fact committed to each other as long as they both live, WITHOUT the legal or religious backing?

Legal marriage is meant to join families, households, goals, dreams and make it easier to take care of each other and children within the union.

In the absence of legal/relgious proceedings, can a couple still be seen as married?

If not then why isn't it harder to get married?

If so then why can't those proceedings be seen as another choice for the couple, like having children, or only one income? As in, a choice made PRIVATELY between the couple and none of anyone else's business?

Yes, but the original statement was "I would bet you ..." It was a hypothetical bet. So the statement was wrong, but the bet was never made.

Considering how many different personalities and viewpoints about religion, political, lifestyle, etc. there are; the amazing thing is that ONLY half of marriages end up in divorce! Look around any room and ask yourself if you could live for 50 years with anyone in it. Unless your own spouse is there, and maybe if he/she is, the answer is most likely "no".