Should marriage be taken out of the finance system?

Mrs_pbradley936

This is a quote from the main article see link below

Between the 1960s and the 1990s the number of women who cohabited before marriage rose from 6% to 70% in England and Wales. Last year a quarter of all unmarried people aged between 16 and 49 were cohabiting. The Law Society believes that the law at the moment does not provide adequate protection for the rising numbers of cohabitants and the result is that thousands of people are left vulnerable if their long-term relationship fails.


http://www.divorce.co.uk/hottopics/articles/cohabitants.htm

nelly_2

Yes I agree they should have full protection from the law thats what Im saying

Mrs_pbradley936

They can have protection IF THEY SIGN UP FOR IT BY GETTING MARRIED. Then there is no argument from you, me, the man next door, the woman over the road, the loony left, the far right in fact nobody because the relationship is recognised in law. When it is unrecognised because the parties themselves quite like the idea of no strings, no legal obligations, they both walk away with any assets untouched by the other, how on earth can that be policed? I come back to my earlier point of who is going to decide and on what basis? Is the promiscuous man going to have the house and pension divided into umpteen portions? Living together shouts loud and clear that you wish to be outside the protection of the law. You may not know that and assume that you have rights but any rights you may think you have are subject to the whims of others.

hobo28

I agree with those who say that you should get married if you want the full protection of law.

Plus how would this work in reality? If my girlfriend moved in with me but after a month I decided it wasn't working and dumped her, would I then lose half my house? Move that month to say 2 months, 6 months, a year perhaps? At what point would the law recognise a relationship as "long term"?

For arguments sake lets say its 2 years. What about in the above example if my GF decided to finish with me after 1.5 years but stayed for an extra 6 months to make sure she got a claim before she dumped me? Is that fair?

No, I think the current law is right. Living together should be kept seperate from marriage. For many living together is a "trial" marriage and should not carry the full burden.

coolio_2

magnificat wrote:

All studies show that the best way to raise children is in a family with a Dad & Mum committed to each other for life in marriage. Surely happy, secure kids is what we want. Just because many of us fail it doesn't diminish the fact that marriage is best and so fiscal policies should encourage it.

Fiscal policies help marriage between man and man, and woman and woman as well. And not all studies state that man and woman married bring up the most adjusted kids, that's just people arguments against single parents, and those in gay relationships who have children.

seven-day-weekend

I went to a wedding in September between two young people aged 22. It was good to see them a) getting married at all and b) getting married without living together first after an old-fashioned 'courtship'.

Anyway, back on-topic: The people who want legal protection for their partnership can have it, it's there in legislation, it's called marriage. You can't and shouldn't be able to have it both ways. You either make the legal commitment or have the option of walking away without any legal ties.

It's your choice.

Lois_Lane

teddyco wrote:

The bible is clear about homosexuality! It says that it is a sin!
The bible is clear about sexual activity outside of marriage! It says that it is a sin!

When we support sin in our laws, rules and government, then we will suffer the results of what sin brings, destruction!

Homosexuality and sex outside of marriage are only sins if you are a follower of religions such as Christianity, and as we live in a diverse society, i.e. one that is made up of members of multiple religions, and people with no religious beliefs, the law must reflect the needs of society, not those of the bible.

LL

mitac

Everybody should treated as individuals ie husaband and wife are seperate tax entities., then it does not matter whether they are living to gether, gay couples or hubsband and wife. Equality rules
Did the conservatives try this or aim for this

:beer: :beer:

mitac

Stompa

teddyco wrote:

The bible is clear about homosexuality! It says that it is a sin!
The bible is clear about sexual activity outside of marriage! It says that it is a sin!

When we support sin in our laws, rules and government, then we will suffer the results of what sin brings, destruction!

I suspect you must be joking - there's surely nobody left who believes such drivel.

i_love_it

Marriage is, always has been and always will be a business arrangement. you have to be in it to win it, and theres still a price to pay! opt out and there's a price for that too... solo is the future, we're all cottoning on.....