Why marriage, and not a committed LTR.....

[speed dawg]

This needs to be discussed. It is a subject that has been discussed ad nauseum but the answer has yet to be revealed. We all know the only difference in the two is the legal contract.

So, why sign the contract and cross the line between a LTR into a marriage?

First, let's talk about the contract. What it does is recognize your union in front of the government. It also protects both parties. It's a 50/50 deal, sometimes it favors women, sometimes it favors men, depending on who had the most going into it.

The answer to why you should sign that contract? Religion, period. Now, first off, I hate using the word 'religion' because it waters down my own personal Christian beliefs by lumping in Christianity with Islam, Buddha, whatever. But I will since it makes this discussion simpler. If you aren't religious, there's simply no reason to sign that contract. None. You can raise children in a committed LTR I would think. And if the relationship ended, I'm sure the family courts would proceed the same as if you were married.

So put simply, there's your answer. We can debate all day long why marriage is a religious institution, and I welcome that. But I wanted to get this out there so we can distinguish, since it's sure to be a hot topic on the "Married Man" forum.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Money is a very typical reason. I got married when I was 21 to get student loans. Then I never paid the money back, which is why I'm not getting married now. There's no reason to let the government go after my girlfriend for my bad debt.

Health insurance, taxes and student aid, or simply because one spouse has money or income are all very common reasons for marriage. The ancient concept of dowry shows us that money has always been involved.

 

[5string]

It's all about a promise. Being married is much more formal. It's a union. Sure, you take a chance financially, but if you are THE MAN, she takes the chance of losing you for something less. Personally, I covered my bases when I married for the second time. I have nothing to lose and she has nothing to gain should we divorce heaven forbid. Thus, she is motivated to make it work.

 

[speed dawg]

I'm talking more about an ideal of marriage, not necessarily a 'use for money' type thing. Obviously we all know that's, well, not a smart reason to get married. Sure, you can say money, but that's not really an answer to the question, why marriage over an LTR? Health insurance, taxes....all that to me is sort of like saying I'm going to go buy a car for my business to get a write off....spending 30K for a 3K refund isn't a bargain to me.

5string: I know your situation and respect that. I know you aren't religious and happily married at the same time. My question is still the same: Why the contract? Couldn't you have the promise, formality, and union without the paper and government intervention?

 

[backbreaker]

just felt like the right thing to do.


let me rephrase, after spinning 7 course meals worth of plates for a few years, and being settled with this one woman for a little over a year, at that point in time it felt like it was the right thing to do. still do not regret my decision.

that's the best i got. anything other than that honestly i'd be lying.

 

[5string]

I'm talking more about an ideal of marriage, not necessarily a 'use for money' type thing. Obviously we all know that's, well, not a smart reason to get married. Sure, you can say money, but that's not really an answer to the question, why marriage over an LTR? Health insurance, taxes....all that to me is sort of like saying I'm going to go buy a car for my business to get a write off....spending 30K for a 3K refund isn't a bargain to me.

5string: I know your situation and respect that. I know you aren't religious and happily married at the same time. My question is still the same: Why the contract? Couldn't you have the promise, formality, and union without the paper and government intervention?

Dawg.... It's tough to answer to be honest. I love my wife more than anything. She's the same so it works brother. If I just lived with her it would simply be for convenience. Being married however means we are bound together emotioally, physically and I dare say financially, at least to an extent as in my case. Being married is the ultimate risk my brother. It might be considered the ultimate monogamy. As I said, it's a promise filled with emotion and love. I'm at peace and happy. I hope all my brothers on here find their peace, married or not. All of you deserve to be happy in life.

 

[FLGuy]

just felt like the right thing to do.

why did it feel like the "right" thing to do? That's just beta speak for I submitted to the Female Frame.

 

[AlNess]

You can raise children in a committed LTR I would think. And if the relationship ended, I'm sure the family courts would proceed the same as if you were married.

So put simply, there's your answer. We can debate all day long why marriage is a religious institution, and I welcome that. But I wanted to get this out there so we can distinguish, since it's sure to be a hot topic on the "Married Man" forum.

Marriage implies intent and family-oriented leanings, especially when children are in the picture. I always believed in this to some extent, but it became even more apparent to me as I got older. My wife and I are quite conservative, and we both feel that it would have been a disservice to our daughter had we decided to have and raise her out of wedlock. It would seem half-assed and not indicative of complete, 100% commitment. It would look like we were living out our relationship with one foot out the door. Also, though my wife and I were raised in very loving households, neither one of us was raised in a traditional 2-parent household. We want our daughter to have that. We always see people in here wishing things were still like they once were with regards to gender relations; I apply that same sentiment with regards to family and raising children. I can't have it both ways, nor do I want to. I do not want my daughter growing up in a household representative of modern, liberal, feminist underpinnings. If she grows up to believe that she doesn't need a husband to raise a child, it won't be because of any influence I helped set into motion.

Of course, it is technically possible to have and raise children in a LTR. It is also possible to learn how to play a musical instrument without learning how to read music; but without the formal foundation, it will feel like something's missing. I am old enough and realistic enough to realize that marriage does not have a guarantee, but for what my wife and I have and want, that is a symbol of us putting our best foot forward.

That is why for my wife and I, it's the right thing to do. It has absolutely nothing to do with "feminized social contrivances" or anything along those lines. In fact, if one is not planning on having children, I do see far less of a reason for formal marriage.

 

[yaynyppys!]

Marriage implies intent and family-oriented leanings, especially when children are in the picture. I always believed in this to some extent, but it became even more apparent to me as I got older. My wife and I are quite conservative, and we both feel that it would have been a disservice to our daughter had we decided to have and raise her out of wedlock. It would seem half-assed and not indicative of complete, 100% commitment. It would look like we were living out our relationship with one foot out the door. Also, though my wife and I were raised in very loving households, neither one of us was raised in a traditional 2-parent household. We want our daughter to have that. We always see people in here wishing things were still like they once were with regards to gender relations; I apply that same sentiment with regards to family and raising children. I can't have it both ways, nor do I want to. I do not want my daughter growing up in a household representative of modern, liberal, feminist underpinnings. If she grows up to believe that she doesn't need a husband to raise a child, it won't be because of any influence I helped set into motion.

Of course, it is technically possible to have and raise children in a LTR. It is also possible to learn how to play a musical instrument without learning how to read music; but without the formal foundation, it will feel like something's missing. I am old enough and realistic enough to realize that marriage does not have a guarantee, but for what my wife and I have and want, that is a symbol of us putting our best foot forward.

That is why for my wife and I, it's the right thing to do. It has absolutely nothing to do with "feminized social contrivances" or anything along those lines. In fact, if one is not planning on having children, I do see far less of a reason for formal marriage.

Great answer, thanks.

 

[white.thomas4]

Wow, you have found a great way of not paying your debt back.

 

[Lexington]

Marriage existed as a cultural/religious institution long before it became a legal one. For most of the time that marriage has existed, there was no legal contract; it was simply an agreement between two individuals or two families.

Churches accepted a couple as married if they cohabited and claimed to have exchanged vows (even if there were no witnesses). Interestingly, 38 states only began to require marriage licenses as a way to prevent "race mixing."

I don't know about married guys on this thread but the fact is that most women will insist on a marriage at a certain point. Despite feminists' efforts, most girls dream of getting married and raising a family. Most women end up committing to men who earn more money as well. So they will want some sort of contractual obligation from the man. If the man refuses to commit, she will bail.

Interestingly, in Quebec a large number of people have "de facto" marriages. If a couple has been cohabiting for at least a year, they can file taxes together and get most of the legal benefits of marriage (hospital visitation etc.) without the obligations. If the couple splits, neither partner is required to support the other. Of course, this arrangement is now under threat:

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...st_their_will_.html?google_editors_picks=true

Basically, a woman cohabited with a billionaire under this arrangement. Now that they've split, she feels that she is entitled to a $50 million lump sum and $56k per month in addition to the $411,000 she already receives in child support. The case has gone to the Canadian Supreme Court. It'll be interesting to see how they rule on this.

 

[Colossus]

Yes, but couldn't all this peace and tranquility have been achieved in a LTR?? Still don't think an adequate reason has been given why marriage should be preferred to an LTR.

Why do you guys need a reason??? Why do you care?? A man need not justify his personal vows to another man who is in no way involved. It's HIS life, not yours. You can decide your own reasons for doing so or not doing so when the times comes.

 

[ebracer05]

Why do you guys need a reason??? Why do you care?? A man need not justify his personal vows to another man who is in no way involved. It's HIS life, not yours. You can decide your own reasons for doing so or not doing so when the times comes.

That's true, but if another comes along and asks him for advice about why he made the choice he made, a good man will enlighten him.

I don't think this is in any way about forcing a justification out of a guy... at least, if I were asking the question, I would be looking for insight. Isn't that why we're here anyways?

 

[speed dawg]

That's true, but if another comes along and asks him for advice about why he made the choice he made, a good man will enlighten him.

I don't think this is in any way about forcing a justification out of a guy... at least, if I were asking the question, I would be looking for insight. Isn't that why we're here anyways?

Exactly, we're simply asking a question. Seems like Colossus is just looking for attention or something.

 

[speed dawg]

Marriage implies intent and family-oriented leanings, especially when children are in the picture. I always believed in this to some extent, but it became even more apparent to me as I got older. My wife and I are quite conservative, and we both feel that it would have been a disservice to our daughter had we decided to have and raise her out of wedlock. It would seem half-assed and not indicative of complete, 100% commitment. It would look like we were living out our relationship with one foot out the door. Also, though my wife and I were raised in very loving households, neither one of us was raised in a traditional 2-parent household. We want our daughter to have that. We always see people in here wishing things were still like they once were with regards to gender relations; I apply that same sentiment with regards to family and raising children. I can't have it both ways, nor do I want to. I do not want my daughter growing up in a household representative of modern, liberal, feminist underpinnings. If she grows up to believe that she doesn't need a husband to raise a child, it won't be because of any influence I helped set into motion.

Of course, it is technically possible to have and raise children in a LTR. It is also possible to learn how to play a musical instrument without learning how to read music; but without the formal foundation, it will feel like something's missing. I am old enough and realistic enough to realize that marriage does not have a guarantee, but for what my wife and I have and want, that is a symbol of us putting our best foot forward.

That is why for my wife and I, it's the right thing to do. It has absolutely nothing to do with "feminized social contrivances" or anything along those lines. In fact, if one is not planning on having children, I do see far less of a reason for formal marriage.

This is probably the best answer I've ever seen on this subject, without bringing religion into the discussion.