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

Jagraf

j.e.j. wrote: »

Sad but true....

But commitment for the rest of your lives is what a marriage is meant for, even if it's now just become a commercialised spendfest, followed by a quickie divorce once reality sets in :rotfl:

Which I agree with. Which is why I can't see how nowadays those who are married can be seen as any more committed.

I think the commitment is in the relationship, not the marriage.

In the olden days everyone got married locally in the eyes of god and the village and usually you hadn't had secks. Divorce wasn't really acceptable. Now it doesn't mean that, its more about your dress.

gabriel1980

Do you still get a tax break as a married couple? That's the only way I would consider it.

lulu_92

j.e.j. wrote: »

What I am getting from your post is that you want the commitment that goes with marriage, and rightly so, if you're going to have children together.

By the looks of things he doesn't, or he would agree to an engagement.

(Btw you are young, - very young to be worrying about leaving it 'too late'!)

But yes, of course we can only go by a few paragraphs you've written on a forum, so we're not judging, just saying your plans seem to fit the pattern described in a few of the earlier posts on this thread: drop a sprog or two, keep waiting for the right time to get married (it won't ever come.. there'll be even less money to spare once a child comes along), get sick of waiting, and just resign yourself to the fact that he's not interested in marriage, never was.. he just wants you.

We both want the commitment that comes with marriage, and we are both deeply committed to each other. He has even told my friends (when I wasn't even there) how much he wants to marry me and have a family with me (if you knew my OH that is a big step! everyone knows him as a "typical bloke" who doesn't show sentiment) so I'm not really worried. I think it's just been hard because of the year we've had. My friends are getting engaged, married, and having babies and I can't even stay pregnant for 8 weeks, so it kind of feels unfair when there are many reasons why we should be progressing faster than couples that have been together for less time than we've known each other, let alone been a couple. This feeling usually subsides after some cake and a glass of wine

The leaving it too late is if I decided to get married first and wait until my late twenties, which is when these fertility issues I mentioned are likely to arise (if they do) and I told OH a few years ago that I don't want to take that risk by leaving it until I was approaching 30.

The right time for us is when we've bought the house and we go back to work after any maternity leave following a child. I always say there isn't a right time as you can never be financially ready for everything life throws at you, but we want to give it our best shot. We adore each other and neither of us intentionally mean to annoy the other one, especially when it comes to trivial things like an engagement ring :rotfl:

Jagraf

onlyroz wrote: »

So having a civil wedding doesn't mean you're committed? :rotfl:
You're still making a lifetime promise to your partner. The only difference is that you don't include a higher being in that promise.

No, that isn't what I meant. The legal part of a civil ceremony does not need to contain any promise to commit to each ther for life. You just need to be legally able to marry. Unlike a church ceremony, or example, which contains other wording too. I'm not talking about religion at all.

j.e.j.

Jagraf wrote: »

In the olden days everyone got married locally in the eyes of god and the village and usually you hadn't had secks.

You've just reminded me of a bit of genealogy I was doing on my family tree. Great-grandma got married in about 1915.. their first child was born 6 months later

Think the reason they married was that they had had secks..

No divorce, - the marriage lasted until his death in the 1960s. She brought up their 3 children and looked after the home, he went to work and provided for them. Very different to now.

onlyroz

Jagraf wrote: »

No, that isn't what I meant. The legal part of a civil ceremony does not need to contain any promise to commit to each ther for life. You just need to be legally able to marry. Unlike a church ceremony, or example, which contains other wording too. I'm not talking about religion at all.

Ah, so you're comparing the "Til death do us part" bit of the church wedding vows with the "I take you to be my wedded wife" bit if the civil vows. Surely the life-time commitment is encompassed by the definition of being married?

Jagraf

onlyroz wrote: »

Ah, so you're comparing the "Til death do us part" bit of the church wedding vows with the "I take you to be my wedded wife" bit if the civil vows. Surely the life-time commitment is encompassed by the definition of being married?

I think the definition of marriage is now very subjective, so everyone gets married for different reasons.

Georgiegirl256

lulu_92 wrote: »

Maybe in some scenarios it is.

For me (X) and OH (Y) it is:
X wants to marry Y, Y wants to marry X but wants to make sure they can afford the wedding they both like (although know they could go down the registry office for cheap but X and Y would like a wedding and know they don't need to justify reasons why to anyone ). X tells Y that if the intention is there they should get engaged, Y is very vague on the subject, so X and Y don't get engaged (which I hope is not the end of the story!)
.

To be fair, the above sounds exactly like what PasturesNew was describing.

I'm sad to say, but I always get this overwhelming feeling that you're a lot more keen to do things than your OH whenever I read any of your posts.

missbiggles1

lulu_92 wrote: »

I didn't realise ovulation occurred upon presenting a marriage certificate. Maybe that's where I'm going wrong! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You may not choose to (and that's your choice) but surely wanting to be married before having a baby can't be that alien a concept to you?

Georgiegirl256

jackieblack wrote: »

There is no such thing as common law spouses in the UK
That is a common misconception.

Co habitating couple are quite often known as common law spouses. What is a common misconception though is that they have the same rights as a married couple.