Why do people think less of a couple who aren't married?

marleyboy

I imagine my Grandparents frowned upon non married couples. But as my parents divorced as well as all my Sisters, married or non married couples are just couples to me.

I cannot say in this day and age I know of anyone who frowns on couples living together, I dont think I have ever heard anyone ask anyone else....."So are you Married?"

As with Post #122. It will mainly be a legalities thing, as the commitment is already cast in stone.

coolcait

As (many) others have said, marriage offers a number of legal securities that you don't get from an unmarried relationship.


Other than that practical point of view, I can't say that I know anyone who looks any differently at relationships which do or don't involve marriage.


I certainly don't know anyone who 'looks down' on relationships which don't involve marriage.


As an aside, the phrase "just a bit of paper" has always intrigued me - when it's used as a reason for not getting married.


If it is truly just a bit of paper, why not acquire it so that you can obtain the legal benefits? Especially if it's not going to change the relationship.

missbiggles1

Callie22 wrote: »

I have to say your place of work sounds appalling. If my partner were to die then there would be no difference between the compassionate leave that I would get and the compassionate leave that I would get if we were married. I can't remember the exact wording but partner and spouse/co-habitee are considered equal in terms of our contractual right to compassionate leave. Equally, if I were to die then my partner is the nominated beneficiary for my death in service payout, and for my pension - in fact I think it's specifically called a 'partner pension' irrespective of if you are married or not.

Fortunately, I don't know of anyone in my office who has lost their spouse or partner but I have no doubt that people would be treated exactly the same, and would be treated with sympathy and dignity - there would be no question of a massive collection and outpouring of sympathy for one person and nothing for the other. I can't even begin to imagine how awful it must have been for those people to come back to work and have their grief dismissed so easily, 'old-fashioned values' or not. Kindness and compassion are also 'old-fashioned values' that we all deserve, whether you agree with someone's life choices or not.

Although I'd expect similar levels of sympathy, I wouldn't necessarily expect someone to get the same number of days' compassionate leave if they weren't actually married (rightly or wrongly).

In addition, my pension scheme has quite separate provision for married and unmarried"partners" which I don't think unusual.

"If you’ve nominated a partner for family benefits, your service from 1 January 2007 will automatically be used in the calculation of family benefits. ..........

If you are married or have registered a civil partnership, all your service from 6 April 1988 automatically counts for family benefits."

Gloomendoom

coolcait wrote: »

As an aside, the phrase "just a bit of paper" has always intrigued me - when it's used as a reason for not getting married.


If it is truly just a bit of paper, why not acquire it so that you can obtain the legal benefits? Especially if it's not going to change the relationship.

Whenever I see it posted, I think the same thing.

If it's just a piece of paper and no big deal, there's no reason not to get one and enjoy the benefits.

duchy

fairy_lights wrote: »

Well I've been with my oh for nearly 5 years and are buying our first house together. We have no plans to get married, but might consider it for the legal benefits. I was never one of those girls who grows up dreaming of a wedding, my parents and siblings are all in long term unmarried relationships so I suppose marriage has never been important to my family.
Frankly I couldn't give a crap if people take our relationship seriously, our family, friends, employers and insurance company (we checked) do, and that's what matters.

A wedding isn't the same as a marriage

A wedding is a party
A marriage is a legal contract that costs little and confers some serious legal rights

What really bugs me is people who refer to their partner as their husband or wife when they aren't. If you don't want marriage fine ....but if you don't- why do you want the title ?

fairy_lights

duchy wrote: »

A wedding isn't the same as a marriage

A wedding is a party
A marriage is a legal contract that costs little and confers some serious legal rights

What really bugs me is people who refer to their partner as their husband or wife when they aren't. If you don't want marriage fine ....but if you don't- why do you want the title ?

Neither the wedding or the traditional concept of marriage e.g. being a mrs, changing last names has ever appealed to me. I think a lot of people who get married don't consider the rights they're getting at all and do it purely for the wedding.
You're right though, the legal contact of marriage would be beneficial and we are seriously considering it - the only problem is that my oh's very traditional mother doesn't understand why we don't want a wedding and would cause some major drama if we just quietly slipped off to the registry office. We don't want to upset anyone but we don't want to spend time and money on something we really don't want either.

Also I'm not sure if the second part of your post was aimed at me but I'd never call my partner my husband, I call him my oh because he's my other half.

marleyboy

What really bugs me is people who refer to their partner as their husband or wife when they aren't. If you don't want marriage fine ....but if you don't- why do you want the title ?

Not sure about that. I guess if people want to call themselves Husband and Wife, I see no harm in it.

I call my OH "The Mrs" or "Her indoors" to my mates or work colleagues, indeed she is titled OH on MSE. Boyfriend or Girlfriend sounds like teenage kids, Lovebirds sounds too Mills & Boon, albeit I imagine some couples do give one another these titles. Whereas to one another its generally "Love" or "Darling".

Once we get married we are not likely to change how we call one another. Unless its in some form of legal framework like forms or courts.

Callie22

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Although I'd expect similar levels of sympathy, I wouldn't necessarily expect someone to get the same number of days' compassionate leave if they weren't actually married (rightly or wrongly).

Why not? I don't mean that aggressively, but it's pretty awful to treat people differently. Let's say that Sue met John on holiday eighteen months ago and got married after a whirlwind romance. Then there's Margaret and Dave (or Dave and Colin ...), who've been living together for twenty years. It would be a tragedy if any of them were to die but why is Margaret (or Dave) less deserving of compassionate leave than Sue? I can only speak for my workplace but I can't see a reason to differentiate. Grief is grief - if you've lived with someone for however many years you're not going to grieve 'more' just because you married them, or any 'less' because you didn't.

My pension scheme doesn't differentiate between spouses and partners. I know when I filled the forms in I did have to say how long OH and I had been together and they do say that they reserve the right to ask questions about your relationship if you nominate someone for a partner pension and you are not married, but as long as you can show some kind of connection and evidence that you've been living together (i.e. a joint house purchase, joint tenancy agreements etc) then a partner is equally as entitled to a pension as a spouse. I've no idea if that's unusual as I've only ever had one workplace pension

missbiggles1

duchy wrote: »

A wedding isn't the same as a marriage

A wedding is a party
A marriage is a legal contract that costs little and confers some serious legal rights

What really bugs me is people who refer to their partner as their husband or wife when they aren't. If you don't want marriage fine ....but if you don't- why do you want the title ?

In a similar vein, it puzzles me when an unmarried woman takes her partner's surname despite saying that she doesn't want to get married.

Peter333

Callie22 wrote: »

Why not? I don't mean that aggressively, but it's pretty awful to treat people differently. Let's say that Sue met John on holiday eighteen months ago and got married after a whirlwind romance. Then there's Margaret and Dave (or Dave and Colin ...), who've been living together for twenty years. It would be a tragedy if any of them were to die but why is Margaret (or Dave) less deserving of compassionate leave than Sue? I can only speak for my workplace but I can't see a reason to differentiate. Grief is grief - if you've lived with someone for however many years you're not going to grieve 'more' just because you married them, or any 'less' because you didn't.

All this may well be true, but still, many people will take the relationship of the married couple more seriously. Even if they have been together 10 years less than the unmarried couple.

That is the way it is. I don't think anyone can pinpoint exactly why.

I feel the same. I take a married couples relationship more seriously than that of an unmarried couple.

I just do. Like I said, I can't say why.