Why do people choose to get married?

Georgiegirl256

jaylee3 wrote: »

I would say it is VERY much the other way around. It's some of the 'unmarrieds' that are so bitter and vitriolic towards the 'marrieds.' Nobody who is married thinks that they are 'above' the unmarrieds. That is just insecurity on the part of the unmarrieds.

But yes, a relationship is more valid when a couple is married. Even the law says that. Whether you like it or not: it's a fact.

It's more valid in the eyes of the law, there's no denying that, and also for some people in the eyes of God if you are religious and get married in a Church, but otherwise apart from those two reasons, I wouldn't say my married status makes my relationship any more valid than say my Aunty & Uncle for example, who were together over 30 years yet never wed.

Regarding your first paragraph, I'd have to respectfully agree to disagree on that one. I do agree that there is a lot of people so eager to get married (look at the waiting for a proposal thread), and while some are envious of married couples, I wouldn't call them Bitter or vitriolic.

jaylee3

itsanne wrote: »

Perhaps it's the unfortunate wording of the original question which has set the tone, but I don't understand why people on both sides appear to be so defensive / judgemental. There are good and bad marriages, just as there are good and bad unmarried relationships.

The only one which really matters to me is my own.

Brilliant post! :T

Same with the childfree and people who are parents. Always b1tching at each other and everyone always think they're the ones in the right. :rotfl:

You hit the nail on the head. There is no right or wrong.

Tropez

jaylee3 wrote: »

Brilliant post! :T

Same with the childfree and people who are parents. Always b1tching at each other and everyone always think they're the ones in the right. :rotfl:

You hit the nail on the head. There is no right or wrong.

Oh yeah, I constantly get the people with kids waxing lyrical about how wonderful they are and how my wife and I are wrong for not having them - that I won't be complete without them or some other thing. The thing is, I get that for some people kids are really important and they do complete them, or some such, but my wife and I both agree we'd rather regret not having kids 40 years from now than have a kid and end up regretting it. But doesn't mean I think people with kids are "wrong" for having them - I just think they're wrong for me

Sky_

I love my husband, I got married because we both wanted to marry each other, I loved him totally and I couldn't imagine life without him.

I love my children too and am very happy we had them. But they are hard work, demanding and so on, so I do understand why many people choose not to have any.

I don't mind if other people marry or don't, as long as they take responsibility for their choices: accept that divorce is more complex than separating when unmarried / understand that your legal rights are different if you're unmarried vs married, and so on.

PlymouthMaid

Jaylee - I know your question was addressed to another poster but just because my daughters do not share my last name does not make them any less my daughters does it? As it happened their dad really wanted to them to have his name and I didn't mind either way. That seems to be the sort of comment which married people make in an attempt to make unmarrieds feel less of a family but I assure you it is all in the mind of the one's asking the question as personally I have never given it a thought.

Also relating to earlier points, my daughters have never really shown any interest or concern as to why myself and their dad never married. Plus my own parents have so far been married for almost 54 years so no correlation there

balletshoes

PlymouthMaid wrote: »

Jaylee - I know your question was addressed to another poster but just because my daughters do not share my last name does not make them any less my daughters does it? As it happened their dad really wanted to them to have his name and I didn't mind either way. That seems to be the sort of comment which married people make in an attempt to make unmarrieds feel less of a family but I assure you it is all in the mind of the one's asking the question as personally I have never given it a thought.

Also relating to earlier points, my daughters have never really shown any interest or concern as to why myself and their dad never married.
Plus my own parents have so far been married for almost 54 years so no correlation there

yes, I was going to reply on this point earlier - as an example, I have no clue if my daughter's friends parents, a lot of whom I have known as acquaintances for 8 years now, are married or not. I don't care, neither does my DD. There are so many different types of family unit these days that the nuclear "married with 2 kids" family is just one type of family.

If I wasn't married to her Dad, and she asked why, I'd answer that we didn't see the need to get married, as it can be expensive and it can be stressful (even just organising the civil version, thats what we did and it was still more stress and hassle than I like). In my opinion, getting married doesn't mean you are more committed as a couple, compared to a couple who live together long-term, with or without a family.
My DD does intend getting married (she's 13) with a big white wedding etc. Thats great, I have no problem with that, she has those dreams. I never did - I remember telling my parents when I was 17 that I was never getting married.

I got married for legal reasons - if it hadn't been for those reasons, I honestly don't think I would have got married, as to me it doesn't strengthen my commitment to my OH and family unit. But I have no problem with people who feel differently, and I love a good wedding (as a spectator ).

jaylee3

PlymouthMaid wrote: »

Jaylee - I know your question was addressed to another poster but just because my daughters do not share my last name does not make them any less my daughters does it? As it happened their dad really wanted to them to have his name and I didn't mind either way. That seems to be the sort of comment which married people make in an attempt to make unmarrieds feel less of a family but I assure you it is all in the mind of the one's asking the question as personally I have never given it a thought.

I have not said that your daughters are any less your daughters because they do not have your name. I am merely asking why, when a woman has a baby to a man she is not married to, why she always gives the child the man's name.

Seems every woman I know who has had a child (or children) in a relationship where she is not married to the man, she has always given the children the man's name. Why? Just in case? Just in case they decide to get married eventually??? If you are so determined you will never marry, why do the children always have the man's name?

And I am certainly not suggesting you are 'less of a family.' Maybe that is how you feel? Because I never said it OR suggested it. You seem to be projecting a bit tbh, and you seem very defensive.

PenguinJim

I've seen a couple of people here say that one reason they got married was to have the same surname. It's worth pointing out that marriage doesn't automagically change your name - you still have to change your name by deed poll, which you can do whether you marry or not.

Indeed, I see quite a few posts here by people who seem to sleepwalk their way through ridiculous traditions without even considering the idea that they don't have to do things that way. Always consider that there may be a better way. Purely on the topic of marriage, I've seen people here waste ridiculous amounts of money on engagement rings, fall to pieces trying to have their wedding and their marriage on the same day, and simply go through with changing the woman's surname to the man's when they marry without considering him changing his name instead (or no change at all), all because it's "tradition". I'm amazed at how people can undertake such expensive or life-altering endeavours without taking a few seconds to consider why.

“Tradition becomes our security, and when the mind is secure it is in decay.”
― Jiddu Krishnamurti

I'd also like to bring up the relatively untraditional method of name splicing, as I love the real-world example of Mr Pugh and Miss Griffin marrying and becoming the Puffins. (Sadly not for me, as we'd end up as Mr and Mrs Bung)

jaylee3 wrote: »

Seems every woman I know who has had a child (or children) in a relationship where she is not married to the man, she has always given the children the man's name. Why? Just in case? Just in case they decide to get married eventually??? If you are so determined you will never marry, why do the children always have the man's name?

I haven't seen any statistics on this particular topic, but do you live in a rather old-fashioned location where sexism is still rife, perchance? I have been reading about the ways people change their names and name their children in preparation for my eventual spawn, but personally I'm not too worried about my kids having my family name or not. They might not have my partner's family name, either. We'll invest a large amount of time into researching the best way to name them (the best way for THEM, not for us, of course).

Incidentally, perhaps all of your friends invested a large amount of time into researching the best way to name their children, and found that the most logical approach was to give their children the father's family name? (I assume you're talking about family names, and not your friends being forced to call their daughters "Gordon" )

Bangton

jaylee3 wrote: »

I have not said that your daughters are any less your daughters because they do not have your name. I am merely asking why, when a woman has a baby to a man she is not married to, why she always gives the child the man's name.

Seems every woman I know who has had a child (or children) in a relationship where she is not married to the man, she has always given the children the man's name. Why? Just in case? Just in case they decide to get married eventually??? If you are so determined you will never marry, why do the children always have the man's name?

And I am certainly not suggesting you are 'less of a family.' Maybe that is how you feel? Because I never said it OR suggested it. You seem to be projecting a bit tbh, and you seem very defensive.

I think the defensiveness comes from the way you worded your post/question.

There's a few reasons really. .

my partner doesn't have a relationship with his family. It's not a story I want to tell really but for obvious reasons this has caused him great pain. I had decided for this reason I wanted him to share the same surname as our son (we discussed and agreed to this). As I said it doesn't matter to me what his name is - I gave birth to him.

I guess it's also old fashioned but why do most women take their husband's name after marriage? To me there's little difference. He'd have his surname if we were married so he can have it since we're not.

To be fair his forenames suit OH'S surname alot better than mine too

balletshoes

jaylee3 wrote: »

I have not said that your daughters are any less your daughters because they do not have your name. I am merely asking why, when a woman has a baby to a man she is not married to, why she always gives the child the man's name.

Seems every woman I know who has had a child (or children) in a relationship where she is not married to the man, she has always given the children the man's name. Why? Just in case? Just in case they decide to get married eventually??? If you are so determined you will never marry, why do the children always have the man's name?

And I am certainly not suggesting you are 'less of a family.' Maybe that is how you feel? Because I never said it OR suggested it. You seem to be projecting a bit tbh, and you seem very defensive.

my daughter had my name from birth until we married.