Log in

View Full Version : Pros and Cons of Marriage



Pages : 1 2 [3]

jack0177057
04-27-2021, 02:21 PM
^ It does not require a lot of money. It only requires that you maintain the same standard of living that you had as a single person. So, instead of sharing a mortgage to live in a bigger house - that you will have to sell when you split up, anyway, - just buy what you can afford on your own and avoid the commingling of income and assets.

jack0177057
04-27-2021, 02:24 PM
yes you can get divorced And not have issues at all... e.g me , I own lots of property I am prob worth over a million on paper but my ex husband agreed to take nothing cos he’s a good bloke. I trusted him when I married him and to this day I trust him so if you do get married ask yourself do I 100% trust this person, if you have a lot to lose I don’t know but I had lots more than him when I married him but he never took a penny . It depends on your relationship, by the way we are still very good friends x just editing this we didn’t have kids x what I’m trying to say is love is a heart thing it’s not about who has what, I loved my ex and I gave it my all and he loved me just didn’t work but just because doesn’t mean it’s always a business transaction I think that’s a gross way of looking at it, I say go with your heart I did x

You are very lucky; that is not the norm. There is also a possibility that he talked to a lawyer and was informed that he had no legal basis to try to take any property from you. For example, in Texas and other community property states, anything owned prior to marriage is 'separate property' and your divorcing spouse has no rights to it (except for a right to be reimbursed for community property that was used to maintain or improve the separate property).

I would not encourage others to blindly trust their SOs in a situation like yours. You were extremely lucky. Everyone is decent and trustworthy when you are mutually in love, but, any resentment over time has a way of changing that, or, making them see things differently.

Also, when lawyers get involved and inform people of their rights, most people want everything they can get. You will hear this from them - "I am not asking for anything unfair or unreasonable. It's the law! I'm entitled to it!"

charlie61
04-27-2021, 03:40 PM
It does require a lot of money compared to combining households, Jack! I know what you mean, truly, but one of the benefits of cohabitation is a reduction in living costs.

Angela888
04-27-2021, 04:44 PM
It’s a sad world we live in when finances come into marriage etc! That being said I’d not marry again but not for financial reasons just cos it’s not for me . I don’t believe he went to a lawyer cos he asked me for divorce I said yeah of course and it was done on the Internet no lawyers involved, no arguments ..... maybe I did get lucky with my ex but I still believe in marrying for love , it’s gross to me all this pre nup stuff, while I understand it , it kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Possibly I’m a hopeless romantic .

miss.a.p1600
04-27-2021, 05:49 PM
yes you can get divorced And not have issues at all... e.g me , I own lots of property I am prob worth over a million on paper but my ex husband agreed to take nothing cos he’s a good bloke. I trusted him when I married him and to this day I trust him so if you do get married ask yourself do I 100% trust this person, if you have a lot to lose I don’t know but I had lots more than him when I married him but he never took a penny . It depends on your relationship, by the way we are still very good friends x just editing this we didn’t have kids x what I’m trying to say is love is a heart thing it’s not about who has what, I loved my ex and I gave it my all and he loved me just didn’t work but just because doesn’t mean it’s always a business transaction I think that’s a gross way of looking at it, I say go with your heart I did x

This is quite interesting

Most times the less affluent former spouse/partner is trying to stake their claim to half.

But this is also very common in cases where kids are involved because the cost of raising kids ain’t cheap.

I wonder if your ex would have been so nonchalant about the divorce settlement money if y’all had other post divorce obligations such as kids, etc

miss.a.p1600
04-27-2021, 05:54 PM
This is exactly my point. Why even live together if you think marriage is a bad idea? A better option, if you want to be close to your SO, would be to buy houses next to each other or flats or apartments next to each other. The messy person in the relationship can be messy without any nagging from the clean person and the clean person in the relationship can maintain a spotless home. If the lady is very posh and the guy is a hoarder who collects old sports memorabilia and other junk, they can both be happy.

I wish I could pull this off.

I would love if I had an Airbnb or some properties I could stay in whenever I want then rent it out the rest if the time whilst staying with my partner/spouse

The challenge is that most people wouldn’t agree to live “separately” from their spouse even if it is just next door

carmen_b
04-27-2021, 06:04 PM
^ You could pull that off and get 1-3 day breaks here and there. :)

Except you tend to use them when they are not booked ( no not usually weekends or holidays ect ).

eagle2
04-27-2021, 06:23 PM
This is exactly my point. Why even live together if you think marriage is a bad idea? A better option, if you want to be close to your SO, would be to buy houses next to each other or flats or apartments next to each other. The messy person in the relationship can be messy without any nagging from the clean person and the clean person in the relationship can maintain a spotless home. If the lady is very posh and the guy is a hoarder who collects old sports memorabilia and other junk, they can both be happy.

You can save a lot of money by living together, and if you're unhappy with that, you can always go back to living separately. Personally, I don't see any point in getting married, unless you're planning to have children. Perhaps if you're religious, and having that document stating that you're married is a big deal to you, it may be worthwhile. I prefer to avoid all of the complications of marriage.

carmen_b
04-27-2021, 07:04 PM
^ I think a lot of people view living separately ( not 24/7 ) but the majority together as immature.

I know with my former partner we were very slow to move in ( 22 months ) . I’m less commitment phobic now.

The bottom line for *most* is that there isn’t really a luxury of separate living. That’s a huge extra bill.
Maybe just hope your partner works out of town 1-2 days a week haha.

miss.a.p1600
04-27-2021, 08:05 PM
I think I *might* like a setup like Jack mentioned. Idk.

I still hold these traditional values and I feel like if the dude NEEDS to cohabitate with me to save money I’d rather live separate till he can make more income

I feel like living together for financial savings may be what keeps an unhappy partner committed to a dead end relationship longer than necessary

carmen_b
04-27-2021, 08:26 PM
^ Yeah I would hope to “ double “ the space.

That is what former partner and I did. He had a tiny cottage. I rented a room.
Remember it’s Hawaii back then ( extreme high costs ).
Together we got a two level two bedroom. Together we upgraded .

That is how things should look. Living should upgrade / lean towards that typically when you both pool resources.

Honestly the stupid mistake we did was downgrading our living situation ( in an attempt to recover from a high cost place ) after we moved. Oh well live and learn. I still feel bad sometimes wondering if our city apartment “ did us in “ when I had a big home we could have lived in ( but in the burbs )!

Don’t let a dude live with you with no upgrade on the table .

Raziel
04-27-2021, 10:51 PM
Just curious what y’all think are the benefits AND downsides of being in a marital relationship.


Agreed, and this is why I'm confused by a lot of the commentary in this thread. I thought we were discussing the pros and cons of involving the law in your relationship, not the pros and cons of LTRs.

I apologize, but I was answering the original question. I didn't read the entire thread, I just gave Missp my impression of the original question, which asks nothing about the law. This time I did not deviate. I thought we were talking about MARITAL relationships, that's what she asked about, not LTRs. I never even thought ONCE about the law when i was Married.

People can talk about whatever they want, I certainly do (to my occasional detriment), but i was answering the original question.

DeathAndTaxes
04-27-2021, 11:07 PM
yes you can get divorced And not have issues at all... e.g me , I own lots of property I am prob worth over a million on paper but my ex husband agreed to take nothing cos he’s a good bloke. I trusted him when I married him and to this day I trust him so if you do get married ask yourself do I 100% trust this person, if you have a lot to lose I don’t know but I had lots more than him when I married him but he never took a penny . It depends on your relationship, by the way we are still very good friends x just editing this we didn’t have kids x what I’m trying to say is love is a heart thing it’s not about who has what, I loved my ex and I gave it my all and he loved me just didn’t work but just because doesn’t mean it’s always a business transaction I think that’s a gross way of looking at it, I say go with your heart I did x

That is good stuff, there is a certain chivalry/code of honor in not taking more than what you put in. That said the law is messy and there is a prevailing theory that everyone has their price, and as the thread attests not worth the risk.

charlie61
04-28-2021, 06:52 AM
I apologize, but I was answering the original question. I didn't read the entire thread, I just gave Missp my impression of the original question, which asks nothing about the law. This time I did not deviate. I thought we were talking about MARITAL relationships, that's what she asked about, not LTRs. I never even thought ONCE about the law when i was Married.

People can talk about whatever they want, I certainly do (to my occasional detriment), but i was answering the original question.

I think that's interesting! I thought the whole point of getting married was to involve the law in your relationship. I suppose I'm just one of those folks who doesn't "get it," honestly. If it's just a statement about love, then why not just have a wedding and not enter a document into the system?

I only got married (to my best friend and love of my life at the time) because i was planning on going to grad school while dancing, so i wanted to look less sketchy on paper, income-wise.

Raziel
04-28-2021, 07:18 AM
I never even thought about the law when I was married. Just about how much I loved my Wife. The only time the law came into it was when I was adopting my Daughter.

Maybe I'm the one that doesn't get it, I don't know.

rickdugan
04-28-2021, 07:50 AM
You hear people say they don't believe in marriage and they will never marry, but, then they pair with someone and they live together. Just because you don't call it 'marriage' and don't make it official, doesn't mean you can avoid all the drama of living with someone and sharing space, income and property. If you do not believe in marriage, then, avoid also cohabitation and avoid sharing any income and assets.

All due respect jack, but marriage and cohabitation are two entirely different things. When you just live with a girl, you can split at any time. But when you are married, you are legally bound to that person in too many ways to easily list. A lot of it plays out financially, but there are also other legal rights and responsibilities that spouses have that others do not. Shit my wife can't even be compelled to testify against me if I ever commit a crime, but a live-in GF sure can.

I won't even get into how much differently Dads are treated by schools, hospitals, child activity venues, etc., when they are not married to the mother. Basically they are 2nd class citizens, except in those rare instances where they have a court order granting them full custody. As just one of too many examples to fully list, I would not have been able to be in the room during the birth of my 3 kids, nevermind cut the umbilical chords, if I was not married to my wife and the last one is still young, so this was not that long ago.

Angela888
04-28-2021, 08:03 AM
I think that's interesting! I thought the whole point of getting married was to involve the law in your relationship. I suppose I'm just one of those folks who doesn't "get it," honestly. If it's just a statement about love, then why not just have a wedding and not enter a document into the system?

I only got married (to my best friend and love of my life at the time) because i was planning on going to grad school while dancing, so i wanted to look less sketchy on paper, income-wise.

This is just my view but I’m an old romantic I married for love, never marry for less! Marriage is a soul connection

charlie61
04-28-2021, 08:06 AM
^interesting! For me, the LTR is the soul connection, and marriage is about the institution of marriage / legal involvement.

It's cool hearing other perspectives. :)

jack0177057
04-28-2021, 11:55 AM
All due respect jack, but marriage and cohabitation are two entirely different things. When you just live with a girl, you can split at any time. But when you are married, you are legally bound to that person in too many ways to easily list. A lot of it plays out financially, but there are also other legal rights and responsibilities that spouses have that others do not. Shit my wife can't even be compelled to testify against me if I ever commit a crime, but a live-in GF sure can.

My point is that you do not escape drama by opting for cohabitation instead of marriage.

I said before that marriage has legal implications which are usually beneficial to the poorer person in the relationship and detrimental to the richer/higher earning person in the relationship.

I've been married for 20+ years. My wife has been a stay-at-home mom and home-maker throughout our marriage. I earn about $220K a year and she earns $0. In a divorce, we would split everything equally and I would have to pay her alimony for a few years so she can get on her feet (take some refresher college courses or training, look for a job, etc.). In a mere cohabitation arrangement, I would get to keep 100% of the assets (because, everything was purchased with my income) and I would pay her $0 alimony. If she refuses to leave MY HOUSE, I can evict her. So, she's is destitute, homeless and middle-aged. What about all the domestic work she contributed for 20+ years? I was able to pursue my career, because, of all she did for us (we have kids that are now adults). But, cohabitation would not recognize any of that. I might even argue in court that she has been living in MY HOUSE rent-free for 20+ years and she should pay me some rent.

Honestly, I think it would be foolish for a woman to live long-term (7+ years) with a guy that makes A LOT MORE MONEY than her without getting married to him. (If they earn about the same, or she makes more money than him, this argument does NOT apply.) A woman contributes A LOT to a man and to their 'love nest', but, this is only recognized within the structure of marriage. Divorce laws have evolved over hundreds of years to recognize a female's domestic non-economic contributions and her vulnerability after divorce. These laws try to bring some equity/fairness into the equation. A mere cohabitation arrangement ignores all this. It reduces everything to property law - whoever paid for the asset (house, furniture, cars, dog, cat, etc.) is the rightful owner, end of story. If they both paid for it, they are co-owners in proportion to how much each of them paid. (I'm using stereo types of male and females, but obviously, the roles could be switched.)


I won't even get into how much differently Dads are treated by schools, hospitals, child activity venues, etc., when they are not married to the mother. Basically they are 2nd class citizens, except in those rare instances where they have a court order granting them full custody. As just one of too many examples to fully list, I would not have been able to be in the room during the birth of my 3 kids, nevermind cut the umbilical chords, if I was not married to my wife and the last one is still young, so this was not that long ago.

I agree. I said that kids add another level of complication to the marriage vs. cohabitation debate.

DeathAndTaxes
04-28-2021, 12:15 PM
^ I would say that is too extreme I don't think you could successfully argue that there is backrent if there was no prior agreement, it's like suing your tenants for twice the rent in backpay.

That said I do agree that most people coming into this argument here are basically the breadwinner or do evenly contribute. A stay at home partner would be really screwed without the marriage protections. That said it should be a gradual formula, not the flat 50%. Prenups need to be standard but also fair.

jack0177057
04-28-2021, 04:31 PM
^ I would say that is too extreme I don't think you could successfully argue that there is backrent if there was no prior agreement, it's like suing your tenants for twice the rent in backpay.

I was just trying to make a point of how badly things would turn out without marriage. I did not say she would have to pay rent for the past 20 years. But, suppose I tell her today - "You need to leave my house today or I am going to start charging you rent." Obviously, she's going to need some time to move. So, in my eviction case against her, I could ask the judge to award me rent from the time I asked her to leave my house and she refused to leave.


That said I do agree that most people coming into this argument here are basically the breadwinner or do evenly contribute. A stay at home partner would be really screwed without the marriage protections. That said it should be a gradual formula, not the flat 50%. Prenups need to be standard but also fair.

In community property states like Texas, the "community property" is split 50% each. But, the community property includes only assets acquired during marriage with income earned during marriage (not assets acquired prior to marriage, or during marriage with savings from prior to marriage, and not inheritance or gifts). So it is gradual in that sense. If you are married for 1 year, there will not be a lot of community property to split (unless, e.g., you get a $1 million bonus that year, etc.). In my case, we've been married for 20 years, since right after I graduated college. Everything we own is community property that would be split 50-50. There is some fairness to this, I think. In "equitable distribution" states, the rule is whatever the judge thinks is fair and equitable. So, the wealthier person can get royally screwed. Also, alimony in Texas is limited. It usually applies when one spouse cannot support themselves (like a stay-at-home mom) and the couple have been married for a very long time (e.g., it ranges from 5-year alimony if you were married 10 years to 10-year alimony if you were married 30 or more years). But, in equitable distribution states, alimony is customary for the 'poorer' person and, from what I understand, it can continue indefinitely until the 'poorer' person remarries or dies.

Raziel
04-28-2021, 08:43 PM
I think that's interesting! I thought the whole point of getting married was to involve the law in your relationship. I suppose I'm just one of those folks who doesn't "get it," honestly. If it's just a statement about love, then why not just have a wedding and not enter a document into the system?

I only got married (to my best friend and love of my life at the time) because i was planning on going to grad school while dancing, so i wanted to look less sketchy on paper, income-wise.

No, the law about Marriage, as flawed as it is, is meant to protect you. You don't want to marry some dude whom a WEEK later is gonna be fucking some waitress from the greasy spoon down the street and you can't get away from this creep. I didn't have to worry about that because I only wanted my beautiful Native American Wife (Pawnee). Plus, you can really stick it to him when you do find out he's cheating on you. This is just an example. Most of the time the laws about Marriage never come into effect.

But, usually, when they do they benefit YOU, not him. That's why guys bitch about it so. But keep it in your pants, dude! Women are very forgiving of our mistakes, but they won't forgive that.

Robcartruck
05-01-2021, 09:16 AM
Too many great points for me to respond too, so I guess it is truly perspective.....
Legally and morally I would do what ever it is to take care of my family. I think we all would.
The older you get, the more "assets" physical and emotional you have, the more complex this gets. But the longevity is what makes it work. I could not see myself NOT taking care of my partner, married or not. I am legally bound, by my choice, as it just worked out that way for us.
Pro's....yes huge tax advantage. instant child care help. always a sounding board (truth hurts sometimes). Social acceptance for those times it is needed.
Con's....drama every day. the thought of always wondering "what if something else." Divorce.

charlie61
05-01-2021, 09:28 AM
Jack, i think you make a fair point, and i think i agree - in the case that one person makes $0 and the other makes enough money to support the home, i think it's in the best interest of the zero-earnings spouse to get married.

I've never been in that situation. My ex made more money than I, but i always had my own money, and we split bills equally (we didn't share finances whatsoever). I can imagine that i would feel very disempowered and paranoid if i didn't have my own source of income, and were also unmarried.

Raziel
05-01-2021, 10:18 AM
Always remember this simple phrase: "Women forgive, but never forget; Men forget but never forgive." Consider that before you cheat on your spouse, whomever they are.

charlie61
05-01-2021, 10:54 AM
Always remember this simple phrase: "Women forgive, but never forget; Men forget but never forgive." Consider that before you cheat on your spouse, whomever they are.

Ah, yes, i love a good gender stereotype. -_-

Maybe instead, before you cheat on your spouse, think of your values and how you don't want to hurt another human being, rather than just weighing potential repercussions.

But anyway...

miss.a.p1600
05-01-2021, 04:03 PM
Another con Im thinking of is decision making.

While it can be great to consult someone before making decisions (especially if the other person is more wise about the subject) it seems there would be times it would be frustrating to have to consult someone else who isn’t a strong decision maker/action taker on certain areas.

slowpoke
05-01-2021, 05:08 PM
In community property states like Texas, the "community property" is split 50% each.

Not necessarily.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/FA/htm/FA.7.htm

Raziel
05-01-2021, 05:51 PM
Ah, yes, i love a good gender stereotype. -_-

Kinda hard not to do when using a simple rhyming phrase. But it'll keep you off the waitress at that greasy spoon that I mentioned.

charlie61
05-01-2021, 08:59 PM
Another con Im thinking of is decision making.

While it can be great to consult someone before making decisions (especially if the other person is more wise about the subject) it seems there would be times it would be frustrating to have to consult someone else who isn’t a strong decision maker/action taker on certain areas.

That's true! I've found that my relationships usually have a natural balance in that regard, but i could imagine issues coming up around kids, for example.

There are a lot of creative ways of getting around potential issues. You might think this is weird, but my partner and i buy groceries separately to avoid any potential disagreements about inequalities in what was purchased. We share the groceries once we purchase them, but we purchase groceries separately. For example, i don't drink at all, and i don't eat any sugar, so it'd be weird to me if we bought a cart full of groceries together, including a six-pack of beer and an apple pie, when i won't be consuming either of those things. I don't know if that makes any sense the way I'm explaining it, lol. We have a shared checking account that we put money into when we pay shared bills, like the mortgage and utilities, but stuff like food, personal purchases, and entertainment are personal expenses that we wouldn't use our shared account for.

jack0177057
05-03-2021, 11:36 AM
Jack, i think you make a fair point, and i think i agree - in the case that one person makes $0 and the other makes enough money to support the home, i think it's in the best interest of the zero-earnings spouse to get married.

I've never been in that situation. My ex made more money than I, but i always had my own money, and we split bills equally (we didn't share finances whatsoever). I can imagine that i would feel very disempowered and paranoid if i didn't have my own source of income, and were also unmarried.

I agree with you, and that's why I made the disclaimer that my comment only applies when there is a significant discrepancy in income levels.

Dancers make great income, so, most of the time, it would not apply to dancers, unless a dancer quits dancing due to pressure from her SO or because she gets pregnant and wants to focus on her baby. (I'm saying, if she stops dancing. I'm not saying she should.) Then, she is giving up a lot significant earning potential. She will not get compensate for that, if the couple is just co-habitating, and they break up 5, 10, 15 years later, etc.