Getting married when you already live together, have children and the rest anyway!

Almo

Thank you to those posters who answered my questions. The responses were really interesting. I could not agree with you more that people should not get married in a church (or other religious venue) if they are not active members of that religion. It is, in fact, one of my main objections to (some) marriages – that the whole thing is just an excuse for a booze up, some nice pictures and a load of presents. Of course, the churches which allow the practice are just as much to blame. I must say I also find questionable those from a branch (?) of the faith which does not condone divorce who get (re)married in a church from another branch of the faith which does permit divorce.


I don’t see marriage as just a piece of paper, I see it as a commitment between two people who have strong feelings about marriage in the context of faith. As I do not have a religion, I do not place any value on ‘marriage’ for me personally – how can I, when I don’t subscribe to the other beliefs that go with it? Instead, I value the commitment my OH has made to me that is evident in many, many ways in our relationship. I wonder if it because there is no way of defining this commitment to others – no word such as ‘marriage’ that causes problems. Perhaps if I say my OH and I are ‘snoogled’ (ridiculous, vomit inducing couple-word that I shouldn’t even admit to using ) it would be more palatable? I should point out at this stage that my OH and I are in a de facto relationship (heterosexual) which in Australia, where I live, is viewed as legally different to being just boyfriend/girlfriend and carries some rights and responsibilities. This is not necessarily of our choosing – it is a default after having been together for a certain length of time, and because I have sponsored him to be here.

I hope that clarifies my own point of view. I’m particularly anxious to make it clear that I am not someone who disapproves of marriage as a whole. I think it is a fabulous thing. However, I think it should be restricted to those who subscribe to the whole package, as it were.

Odette

Mely wrote: »

A civil partnership between a same sex couple is NOT a marriage. They can call it a marriage if they want,but it isnt! A marriage is between a man and a woman.

Oh thats a very backward attitude.:mad:

Bargain_Rzl

Odette wrote: »

Oh thats a very backward attitude.:mad:

I'm not sure that it is - I know several long-term gay couples in civil partnerships, of whom many agree that "marriage" involves a specific definition which includes the fact that it is a life partnership between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean they are any less committed either to one another or to the notion that long term couples of whichever combination should be afforded equivalent civil recognition and freedom from prejudice.

seven-day-weekend

Mely wrote: »

A civil partnership between a same sex couple is NOT a marriage. They can call it a marriage if they want,but it isnt! A marriage is between a man and a woman.

Agreed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Pee

In France and Germany as I understand it there is a legal marriage which takes place in the Town Hall and a religious ceremony if the couple choose which usually takes place the next day.

Civil partnerships offer the same legal rights as marriage and should be available to those couples hetrosexual or homosexual who wish to make that commitment and the marriage ceremony could then be just for those who actually wish to make their vows before God.

I would be happy to make my vows before God, knowing what would be expected of me, it is before the government where rules change that I have a problem with it all.

Bargain_Rzl

Excellent point, Pee, and IMHO a really sensible approach (in France and Germany, I mean).

Odette

Bargain_Rzl wrote: »

...long term couples of whichever combination should be afforded equivalent civil recognition....

Thats my definition of a marriage, and I know I share that opinion with alot of my peers.

Anywho, this is getting very off topic, I dont want to get into an argument over opinion. I just find it very shocking that people still have these limited views about the semantics of marriage.

gorgeous_gwen

After I posted last night, boyf (I never know what to call him, "my boyfriend" to me almost trivialises our relationship, "partner" sounds so formal) and I had a whispered conversation after we went to bed. I'm easy to read, I wasn't being "off" but I realise I do withdraw into myself when I have things on my mind so he knew I was still deep in thought about something.

He said it isn't on his mind because nothing's going to happen for a couple of years so he doesn't see any point in thinking about it now, gave me a hug and went to sleep! He's said this before- think I mentioned it, and I'd said about booking things in advance, but to be honest that was all we said as it wasn't really the time for a conversation.

Not sure what to do now, I can understand wanting to wait and save money which we have spoken about, but I feel that without making any plans, be it only setting a date, we are simply meandering along. But I don't want to keep bringing it up and having half-conversations leaving things unfinished, or keep mentioning the same thing, it's not progressing anything.

Dinah93

I think you need to have a further talk, about how if its a couple of years till you get married you really need to be booking things and start saving for it asap. If its a couple of years until he even thinks of asking, well thats something you need to decide if you can wait and see for.

Mely

Odette wrote: »

Oh thats a very backward attitude.:mad:

Im just stating a FACT, nowhere in the civil partnership legislation will you see it described as a marriage. A civil partnership is just to protect peoples legal rights,nothing more. I have no problem with same sex relationships btw. There is a liberal fascism going on now,where if you dont go along with 'current' trends then you are somehow backward thinking,which is just not true. Even liberal thinking California is putting an end to same sex 'marriages',because they realise its an oxymoron.