The best policy the Tories could introduce is a proper married couples allowance

Lunary

The_White_Horse wrote: »

all this "marriage is unecessary" is rubbish. all those in long term relationships but not married have serious underlying issues.

It disappoints me that the sum total of your argument is 'YOU DON'T THINK THE SAME AS ME, THEREFORE THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU' style rantings

The_White_Horse

Lunary wrote: »

It disappoints me that the sum total of your argument is 'YOU DON'T THINK THE SAME AS ME, THEREFORE THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU' style rantings

i'm sorry you are disappointed, there must be something wrong with you.

Idiophreak

Really2 wrote: »

Sorry can't agree with that. You don't have to have a lot of money to get married.

Perhaps you mean you can not afford the wedding, reception etc. you both want yet.;)

Yeah, that's what I said above...and it's much the same thing, actually.

As it stands there are few reasons "legally" we'd want to be married. So the "point" of us getting married will largely be for the sake of commitment etc.

If, however, there was a financial incentive for being married, we'd have to think about doing a registry thing and getting it over with. Would that really be a good thing though? do you want people marry for love, or to save money?

Sir_Humphrey

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Er, I know it's not very PC to say it, but marriage is actually a good thing and should be encouraged.

I have no problem with marriage, but it should be a free choice. The only role govt should play is in setting lower age limits, protecting against forced marriages and the setting the framework for divorce and the suchlike. Govts should certainly not bribe people to get married.

Pressurising people into marriage only benefits divorce lawyers.

Really2

Idiophreak wrote: »

If, however, there was a financial incentive for being married, we'd have to think about doing a registry thing and getting it over with. Would that really be a good thing though? do you want people marry for love, or to save money?

You can still get married in church, the spending £1000's is not the wedding.

Totally agree with the bold bit, but if love was the only reason you don't have to show that on a mega bash afterwards.

Not getting married because of money is also confusing love and money if you ask me, you can get married without the £1000's like I said, church or no church.:)

lemonjelly

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Although I've never been married, I do think that bringing back a benefit for married people is a good thing for society in general. I find it both heartbreaking and irritating when people talk of how they've been left impoverished by a partner who has died or run off when, if they had been married, they would be in a stronger position.

In general, however, I think I would prefer less tinkering with society by the Government rather than more.

Lemonjelly - I'm interested to know why you are comparing The White Horse with a mad mass-murderer?

Read his/her historical postings...

The_White_Horse

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I have no problem with marriage, but it should be a free choice. The only role govt should play is in setting lower age limits, protecting against forced marriages and the setting the framework for divorce and the suchlike. Govts should certainly not bribe people to get married.

Pressurising people into marriage only benefits divorce lawyers.

so in effect, you are saying people should not marry because at a later date, they might want to get divorced and if that happens, then there may be a battle - so it is best to not get married, so people can simply walk away from their responsibilities a bit easier???

strange thinking.

as I say - boils down to one thing - commitment issues.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Pressurising people into marriage only benefits divorce lawyers.

And the Wedding Industry, who enjoy marking up catering/flowers/car hire by at least 30% if it's for a wedding rather than any other event. Apparently the "tradition" of engagement rings being diamonds and costing two months salary was a cunning marketing scam by De Beers.

I am not against marriage at all, but I consider buying a house and having a child to represent far greater commitment. Interestingly my parents have been together since they were teenagers and happily married 35 years, but my dad has never worn his ring- he just doesn't like jewellery. My mum often forgets to put hers on. Makes me laugh when I hear people stressing about whether or not people wear theirs- missing the point entirely.

Sir_Humphrey

The_White_Horse wrote: »

so in effect, you are saying people should not marry because at a later date, they might want to get divorced and if that happens, then there may be a battle - so it is best to not get married, so people can simply walk away from their responsibilities a bit easier???

No, what I am saying is that if people feel forced into marriage before they are ready, they are more likely to end up divorced.

I thought I had made my point obvious.

The_White_Horse

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I thought I had made my point obvious.

obviously not.