Akward Situation...

heartbreak_star

Person_one wrote: »

Did you have a look at the link I posted earlier about the legal differences? Its not possible to get exactly the same rights without marrying, no matter what paperwork you have.

You are willing to offer him all that protection/security etc as you'd happily get married.

It's enough for us now though, and certainly better than having nothing at all. Re-discussions can be had at a later date, we've only been together three years after all.

Personally I don't think being married should offer anything that cohabiting doesn't but that's the law, so hey-ho

HBS x

Person_one

heartbreak_star wrote: »

It's enough for us now though, and certainly better than having nothing at all. Re-discussions can be had at a later date, we've only been together three years after all.

Personally I don't think being married should offer anything that cohabiting doesn't but that's the law, so hey-ho

HBS x

I disagree, I think that people should have the option to live together without automatically taking on those rights and responsibilities if that's what they want. It makes perfect sense for their to be an official way to formalise a relationship, then people have a choice.

VestanPance

quidsy wrote: »

I'm not talking about him protecting the little women I'm talking about the concept that you probably (although he may do it all himself) do most of the housework, cook, do the shopping, buy gifts from both of you are christmas & birthdays etc & the myriad other things that women do to make life more comfortable that men enjoy but would never bother to do themselves. Not to mention he can have sex whenever you agree. Pretty much all his needs catered for right? Without you he would prolly have to do much more for himself. So why would he need to "beleive in marriage" when you give him everything a wife would but with the option to get up & walk away with no ties if he should ever feel like it.

It's like reading an episode of Mad Men! I very much doubt there are many young couple that operate in this manner.

Person_one

VestanPance wrote: »

It's like reading an episode of Mad Men! I very much doubt there are many young couple that operate in this manner.

You'd be surprised. Its depressing how often young couples still fall into very traditional gender roles, even without really meaning to.

lostinrates

heartbreak_star wrote: »

It's enough for us now though, and certainly better than having nothing at all. Re-discussions can be had at a later date, we've only been together three years after all.

Personally I don't think being married should offer anything that cohabiting doesn't but that's the law, so hey-ho

HBS x

But then how would peopLe 'opt out' of those rights.

Marriage and joint finances etc is a big step requiring discussion and conversation. A default position of common law after a while would see people draughts into debts or responsibilities they had never had the guts to discuss. Sadly.

Civil marriage can be very simple, no big ceremony, no hoohah, morning off work of you want. We did it just before dh's finals.

lostinrates

Person_one wrote: »

That's exactly my opinion too. .

Astounding when that happens, huh? :beer:

VestanPance

Person_one wrote: »

You'd be surprised. Its depressing how often young couples still fall into very traditional gender roles, even without really meaning to.

Not the ones I know. Most of the guys tend to be the cooks these days and many of them appear to take on the majority of the housework.

It's quite funny listening to a few of them go on about having to tidy up after their messy partners. Maybe it's just guys in my industry that tend to be a bit OCD about tidyness!

quidsy

It's like reading an episode of Mad Men! I very much doubt there are many young couple that operate in this manner.

nah, I'm sure everyoine is in a perfect gender balanced relationship where their "parter" does everything equally. Do you know any women,?

Mojisola

heartbreak_star wrote: »

Simply put - he doesn't believe it's necessary, obligatory, imperative or a requisite for a happy relationship.

That's a valid position - so he doesn't "not believe in marriage" but doesn't want or need to get married himself.

The legal contract isn't necessary for a good relationship but it can make life easier in other ways.

Person_one

VestanPance wrote: »

Not the ones I know. Most of the guys tend to be the cooks these days and many of them appear to take on the majority of the housework.

It's quite funny listening to a few of them go on about having to tidy up after their messy partners. Maybe it's just guys in my industry that tend to be a bit OCD about tidyness!

Have any of them gone part time to look after the kids?