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

LilElvis

dirty_magic wrote: »

1. Our house is in both our names so it automatically goes to the other when we die.
2. Irrelevant for us, this isn't likely to change.
3. This is one I hadn't thought of!
4. We don't have joint assets except the house.
5. Neither of us have life insurance other than the mortgage which is is in both our names, and you can name a person on a pension.

You can't assume that you would be able to claim against any occupational pension held by your partner as many schemes limit spouses pensions to those who are either married or have entered into civil partnerships.

BarryBlue

missbiggles1 wrote: »

And that short phrase says it all.

Marriage is not "a day", it's (or should be) a lifetime's commitment - that's what "doing it properly" really means, not spending a fortune on a party.

I couldn't agree more and the idea that some tacky and tasteless day spent at a country retreat or whatever is "doing it properly" is quite honestly laughable. There is a forum on MSE where the bridezillas are constantly having breakdowns because they can't find a nail varnish to match their chair covers or the bridesmaids don't like their shoes and so on. Comedy gold, but you have to wonder what makes such people tick!

geerex wrote: »

Yes, and after spending a lifetime with your loved one, I'm sure you'll have happy memories sitting reminiscing about your "big day" when you confirmed your love for each other in the cheapest most cost effective way possible, counting every penny and making it all about the cash savings.
Nothing says "I want to spend the rest of my life with you" quite like a tesco value wedding. :rotfl:

Some people are just not that shallow. The worst weddings I can remember are also probably the most expensive. The wedding industry cynically exploits people who think that they have to have their "perfect day" and spend fortunes on utter nonsense that guests either don't notice or just think are utterly awful. I'm referring to the idea of wishing wells, string quartets, owls, and lots of other things that suck away money for nothing.

I'm sure many people will remember the best weddings they have attended as the ones where there is a quick and simple ceremony then a group of people enjoying themselves over an informal meal and a few drinks. It is not about saving money, it's about not wasting money on rubbish that is of no interest to most people.

In my experience some of the most ostentatious bad-taste spendfest weddings precede the shortest marriages and the worst debts.

geerex

BarryBlue wrote: »

I couldn't agree more and the idea that some tacky and tasteless day spent at a country retreat or whatever is "doing it properly" is quite honestly laughable. There is a forum on MSE where the bridezillas are constantly having breakdowns because they can't find a nail varnish to match their chair covers or the bridesmaids don't like their shoes and so on. Comedy gold, but you have to wonder what makes such people tick!


Some people are just not that shallow. The worst weddings I can remember are also probably the most expensive. The wedding industry cynically exploits people who think that they have to have their "perfect day" and spend fortunes on utter nonsense that guests either don't notice or just think are utterly awful. I'm referring to the idea of wishing wells, string quartets, owls, and lots of other things that suck away money for nothing.

I'm sure many people will remember the best weddings they have attended as the ones where there is a quick and simple ceremony then a group of people enjoying themselves over an informal meal and a few drinks. It is not about saving money, it's about not wasting money on rubbish that is of no interest to most people.

In my experience some of the most ostentatious bad-taste spendfest weddings precede the shortest marriages and the worst debts.

There's a fine line though.
I'm not a fan of huge lavish ceremonies either but on the flip side you've got some miserable sods who invite no-one, have it in some godawful concrete council building then go straight back home afterwards and "celebrate" with some tesco value lemonade.
Some people only find joy in saving money, thats utterly tragic.

maman

geerex wrote: »

How narrow minded and bloody judgemental! :mad:

Has it not occurred to you that sometimes children are unplanned and funds need to be diverted away from a marriage ceremony to buy things like prams and cots?
Or perhaps the wedding fund had to be used for ivf and it was one or the other?

Engage your brain before posting next time. :mad:

What a charming post!


Of course I am aware that unplanned pregnancies happen but only yesterday I read about a couple who had three children and then got married. Oops! They must be careless in the extreme.


I had assumed that the gist of the thread was that people who chose not to marry had strongly held opinions for that decision. It seems some have but others obviously not.

Gloomendoom

My first marriage lasted marginally longer than the ceremony.

The ceremony cost less than £100 and took about ten minutes.

Buzzybee90

maman wrote: »

What a charming post!


Of course I am aware that unplanned pregnancies happen but only yesterday I read about a couple who had three children and then got married. Oops! They must be careless in the extreme.


I had assumed that the gist of the thread was that people who chose not to marry had strongly held opinions for that decision. It seems some have but others obviously not.

I don't really understand your point, loads of people have children the get married - not an alien concept.

BarryBlue

geerex wrote: »

There's a fine line though.
I'm not a fan of huge lavish ceremoniesI'm either but on the flip side you've got some miserable sods who invite no-one, have it in some godawful concrete council building then go straight back home afterwards and "celebrate" with some tesco value lemonade.
Some people ononly find joy in saving money, thats utterly tragic.

Again, complete nonsense. We got married after 20 years for mainly financial reasons. We also invited almost no-one but not because we are miserable sods. We had a ceremony at the (rather nice) register office, then had a splendid afternoon with a champagne afternoon tea, all 10 of us. As others have said, the wedding is far less important than the marriage. We did, however, have a honeymoon cruising on Queen Victoria, although we'd probably have done that anyway.

The money was not an issue for us, we aren't short of a few bob. We had a really nice day. My wife was insistent we weren't having a lavish do, and a church wedding was a complete non-starter. The idea of a "room" with co-ordinated chair covers and all that nonsense just fills us with horror. Weddings do bring out the worst in taste from people, often those who are digging themselves into debt for, well, nothing really. If they could just hear the disparaging comments from the guests they would realise just how much they have wasted.

gayleygoo

maman wrote: »

I'm sure this has been said before (apologies for not reading from the beginning). I don't have a problem with couples who choose not to marry that's their choice. What confuses me is why some choose to have children and then marry afterwards.


Is it because they don't believe in marriage on principle and then change their minds?

I got pregnant while on the Pill at age 20. OH and I were quite shocked, but he nervously asked me if we would be expected to get married. No-one expected it thankfully. For me, it seemed the worst idea ever - get married just because I was pregnant? A baby was a bigger commitment than any ceremony we could have. And we were young and principally against marriage anyway.

Now, 8 years later, I'd like to get married. I'll not lie, I'd quite like to do the fancy dress and family party thing, and cheaply of course, but it would be a bit of fun rather than having much meaning in it

I still think it's the "right way round" for us. Most of my friends have insisted on marriage before children, but I don't think that ever would have appealed to me.

Georgiegirl256

geerex wrote: »

There's a fine line though.
I'm not a fan of huge lavish ceremoniesI'm either but on the flip side you've got some miserable sods who invite no-one, have it in some godawful concrete council building then go straight back home afterwards and "celebrate" with some tesco value lemonade.
Some people ononly find joy in saving money, thats utterly tragic.

But if that's what someone wants, if that's what makes them happy, then good on them for doing it their way. I don't think it's neccesarily about saving money, some people just want a simple day.

Having said that, our local registry office is particularly depressing, and I know there are many other choices nearby for the same cost, so it does make you wonder why they choose that place? Then again, I guess they must have their reasons.

FBaby

I wanted to get married, but definitely not the ceremony. Would have been happy for it to be OH and I and a couple of witnesses. The prospect of being at the centre of attention freaked me out. Thankfully, OH likes it and so convinced me that I would love it too. As it turned out, he was right, once I got over the nerves, I did enjoy it. I can understand though that some people just don't enjoy that kind of attention and much prefer to have a very private do. Why can't people accept that a wedding is a very personal thing and that what is right is what is for the couple?

As for having children before marriage, I think many people don't take for granted that it will happen, especially when getting together in the 30s. It's one thing to plan having 3 children, another to be lucky to make it happen. I think once a couple agree that they went to be parent, they are happy to 'see how it goes' without the pressure of planning to make a baby. They then delay the wedding because they don't know when they might indeed get pregnant and want to get over the pregnancy, first few month before focussing on it. I personally don't think it matters one bit, what does is that both parents are totally committed to becoming so before deciding to stop protecting themselves.